# There Bill Clinton goes again



## teapartysamurai (Apr 20, 2010)

> Former President Bill Clinton last week inadvertently demonstrated Karl Marx's shrewd observation, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." The historical event in question is the attempt to deter by smearing a broad-based, popular, American anti-high-tax, anti-big-central government movement as likely to induce seditious violence against the government.
> 
> The historic example of this calumny was Alexander Hamilton's slander against Thomas Jefferson and James Madison's emerging Republican/Democratic Party. The first repetition, as tragedy, was Bill Clinton's attack on the Republican Contract With America rhetoric following the Oklahoma bombing in 1995 - which resulted in deflecting the upward progress of conservatism from the summer of 1995 onward.
> 
> ...


 
More here:  BLANKLEY: There Bill Clinton goes again - Washington Times

So history comes full circle and now the party that resulted from a backlash of this kind of slander falls prey to using the same kind of smear tactic.

Bill Clinton has been using this tactic since the OK City bombing.

But we have had a year of the tea party and the only violence has come from the left.  Whether it's beating up black men handing out "don't tread on me" flags or the disputed beating of a couple two weeks ago (still debate on whether it was political or not).

The point is, there has been NO violence from the tea party nor will there be.  It's not about violence.  It's about beliving in the Constitutional political process to return this country to it's Constitutional limits.

They see the Obama government as an out of control attempt to do away with the Constitutional limits on government and they want to put a stop to it.

The fact that all the left can answer with is smears, is solid evidence of on which side the truth lies.

The side with the truth doesn't need smears, and obviously that's all Obama's side has.


----------



## CMike (Apr 20, 2010)

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


----------



## teapartysamurai (Apr 20, 2010)

CMike said:


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


 
Does anyone take that guy seriously anymore?  I have to wonder.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 20, 2010)

"I never inhaled and only took one hit"
I knew then he was a liar.


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 20, 2010)

CMike said:


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


Will you show a link to Clinton raping anyone?


----------



## CMike (Apr 20, 2010)

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

Full Transcript of NBC Dateline report on Juanita Broaddrick 


She became known as Jane Doe Number 5. Her story was well known to independent counsel Ken Starr, to House impeachment managers, to Washington insiders and Capitol Hill reporters. A month ago, she gave an interview to NBC News correspondent Lisa Myers. Since then NBC News has been carefully investigating this story &#8212; combing through state records, court documents and newspapers, cross-checking dates and events, talking to more than 80 people, and repeatedly requesting information from the White House.


LAST WEEK, as NBC News continued its investigation, Jane Doe Number 5 went public with her extraordinary allegation &#8212; that she was sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton 21 years ago. To some this is an old and unprovable accusation that should never have been circulated to begin with. To others it&#8217;s a story that must be told. Is she to be believed? Or is Jane Doe Number 5 the latest weapon in a relentless political war against Bill Clinton?


Juanita Broaddrick: &#8220;It&#8217;s important to me to tell what happened. I don&#8217;t know how people are going to take this. I don&#8217;t know what they&#8217;re going to think after all these years and months why I&#8217;ve come forward.&#8221;

*you have broken the copyright rules!

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

Care*


----------



## teapartysamurai (Apr 20, 2010)

Political Junky said:


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


 
Two words:

Juanita Broaderick.


----------



## CMike (Apr 21, 2010)

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

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

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

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

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

In the book, she rehashes several charges first made at the end of the Clinton administration &#8212; including that her cat Bullseye went missing and on the day she was supposed to testify for another Clinton accuser, Paula Jones, a would-be jogger approached her and cryptically suggested that Bullseye was dead. Jones, who sued the president for sexual harassment, received an out of court settlement from Clinton for $875,000 in 1998. In the settlement, he never admitted to any improprieties.


edited:  *FOR BREAKING COPYRIGHT POLICY

Care*_


----------



## CMike (Apr 21, 2010)

Bill Clinton should be in prison for rape.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

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



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 21, 2010)

Your Posts should be in conspiracies, CMike.


----------



## Claudette (Apr 21, 2010)

Its pretty obvious to me that the Tea Party movement has the Dems concerned. 

What better way to try marginalize them than by calling them racist, violent and to try to link McVeighs actions and the actions of  the Tea Party movement. 

Smart move on their part.

Peronally I think its a bunch of hooey. 

Of course the LSM will run with that bs all day long. 

Time will tell if this strategy works out for Barry Boy and the Dems though. LOL


----------



## CMike (Apr 21, 2010)

Sarah G said:


> Your Posts should be in conspiracies, CMike.




Yeah, why, you have the testimonies of his victims?

Are you denying that Juanita Brodderick did the interview, or what she said?


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

History repeteing itself.

They wont stop this string of lies until we have another Murrah building


----------



## CMike (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Why did she attend a Clinton fundraiser three weeks after he supposedly raped her??????
> 
> 
> 
> Juanita Broaddrick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Read her interview, and she responds to this.


----------



## xsited1 (Apr 21, 2010)

CMike said:


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



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


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

CMike said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Your Posts should be in conspiracies, CMike.
> ...



Why did she attend a Clinton fund raiser there weeks after she claimed (20 years after the fact) she was was raped?


----------



## hboats (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Asked and answered.  Read the transcript of the interview.

Rick


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

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

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

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


----------



## hboats (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> There is no reason to believe the woman was raped if she refused to go to the police when she had the REAL evidence that could proove the crime.
> 
> Hell she could of at least gone to a Dr and saved the evidence of the crime.
> 
> Lets remember that to be convicted of a crime there needs to be evidence beyond he said she said.



But, you believe that a Tea Party member called someone the "n" word with no proof whatsoever.  Good to know that you don't even believe your own drivel.

Rick


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

Shouting the n word was on tape at the event.

BTW that is not a crime now is it.

What you are talking about here is insisting someone commited a crime because you dont like them.

In the ****** shouting thing there were witnesses who heard it happen.

Does this woman have witnesses to the alledged crime ?


----------



## boedicca (Apr 21, 2010)

The WSJ has a good opinion piece on Bubba today:

_Liberal Democrats and their friends in the media have tried just about everything to dismiss and discredit the tea-party movement. They've accused Americans who are anxious and angry about a rapidly encroaching government of being racists, extremists, birthers, pawns of a corporate "AstroTurf" effortand, now, potential Timothy McVeighs.

No less a figure than Bill Clinton seized on the occasion of the Oklahoma City bombing's 15th anniversary to lecture tea-party activists, first in a speech last week to the Center for American Progress Action Fund, then in a Monday New York Times op-ed. "Have at it, go fight, go do whatever you want," he said in the speech. "You don't have to be nice; you can be harsh. But you've got to be very careful not to advocate violence or cross the line." In the op-ed, he wrote: "There is a big difference between criticizing a policy or a politician and demonizing the government."

Taken strictly at face value, these statements are unobjectionable. Yet given that the tea-party movement has been peaceful and law-abiding, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Mr. Clinton is engaging in a not-so-subtle smear campaign.

In doing so, Mr. Clinton is taking a page out of his own Presidential playbook. Five days after the 1995 bombing, he delivered a speech in which he denounced "purveyors of hatred and division." He said, "They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable. . . . When they say things that are irresponsible, that may have egregious consequences, we must call them on it." A news report at the time noted that Mr. Clinton made these incendiary accusations while "never putting a noun to the pronoun."

Mr. Clinton's opposition to "demonizing the government" would be more credible had he been heard from on the subject during the first eight years after he left officewhen, for example, Hollywood demonized George W. Bush by releasing "Fahrenheit 9/11," or when Mr. Clinton's own former Vice President railed against the man who beat him in 2000: "He betrayed this country!"

Instead, Mr. Clinton's effort to exploit the memory of Oklahoma City looks like a partisan cheap shot. In his speech last week, the former President observed that, unlike the Boston Tea Party, "this fight is about taxation by duly, honestly elected representatives that you don't happen to agree with, that you can vote out at the next election." Our guess is that the next election is what he's really afraid of._


The Violence Card - WSJ.com


----------



## hboats (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Shouting the n word was on tape at the event.
> 
> BTW that is not a crime now is it.
> 
> ...



It was not on the tape.  You are an idiot if you keep saying the same thing over and over without proof.  There is no tape that has audio of someone shouting the "n" word.  If you've seen it, please post it here and go collect the $10,000 that is yet to be collected.

I never said that Clinton committed a crime.  HOWEVER, I do tend to believe this lady's story.  I mean come on, even you must see a pattern with ole Bubba Clinton and women.  If you don't see that there is a pattern and that there are more than just this story of this kind of thing going on with him then you're a lot duller than even I gave you credit for.

Rick


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

Tea party protesters scream '******' at black congressman | McClatchy


There is a BIG differance between consetntual sex and rape.

Ther is NO pattern of rape in what Clinton did all his life.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 21, 2010)

That report has been widely refuted, moron.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

Link?


----------



## blastoff (Apr 21, 2010)

Um...so not every guy trying to get his party's nomination for president has to have someone on his staff in charge of Bimbo Eruptions?


----------



## hboats (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Tea party protesters scream '******' at black congressman | McClatchy
> 
> 
> There is a BIG differance between consetntual sex and rape.
> ...



I listened to that whole link and did not hear the "n" word once.  Please, point out exactly where it is supposed to be on that tape.  And if it's there why hasn't someone claimed the $10,000?

Wow, you sure have a way of twisting what people say to fit your agenda, don't you?  I said Clinton's pattern with women.  I NEVER said Clinton had a pattern of rape.  There is a pattern of affairs.  When it comes to matters of rape do you tend to always doubt a woman's word?  Or is it just when a Democrat is accused?

Rick


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

Newt was fucking his much younger aid while impeaching Bill for fucking his aid.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

hboats said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Tea party protesters scream '******' at black congressman | McClatchy
> ...



Its at the very begining and the very end of the tape.


----------



## hboats (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Newt was fucking his much younger aid while impeaching Bill for fucking his aid.



Do you have proof of this?  Or are you just taking the word of someone on it?  Wasn't it you who just got done saying 





> There is no reason to believe the woman was raped if she refused to go to the police when she had the REAL evidence that could proove the crime.
> 
> Hell she could of at least gone to a Dr and saved the evidence of the crime.
> 
> Lets remember that to be convicted of a crime there needs to be evidence beyond he said she said.



Please provide the proof of your accusations.

Rick


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

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


----------



## hboats (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> hboats said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



I guess you better go claim your $10,000 with this tape that has already been blown out of the water.  Let's see how far you get with that.

Rick


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

Please provide any evidence this tape has been debunked?


----------



## hboats (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


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



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

Rick


----------



## hboats (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Please provide any evidence this tape has been debunked?



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

Rick


----------



## boedicca (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Newt was fucking his much younger aid while impeaching Bill for fucking his aid.




Could you possibly be more stupid?


----------



## CMike (Apr 21, 2010)

It's amazing how supposed "feminists" protect a rapist because they share the same political view.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

So I provide what you ask and you ignore the fact that you were wrong but refuse to provide any evidence of what you claim?

This is why the right is such a mess, you cnat build a good party with lies.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 21, 2010)

Please provide one shred of reasoning why Newt Gingrich has any relevance to Clinton's recent comments.

(Gingrich didn't lie under oath, btw.)


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

CMike said:


> It's amazing how supposed "feminists" protect a rapist because they share the same political view.



So ANY claim of rape is a crime?

are you really that stupid


----------



## CMike (Apr 21, 2010)

hboats said:


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



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

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


----------



## CMike (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> > It's amazing how supposed "feminists" protect a rapist because they share the same political view.
> ...



Your hero has a pattern of being a sexual predator.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

hboats said:


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



And Bush lied to the country about WMDs in Iraq and no one impeached him did they?


----------



## jillian (Apr 21, 2010)

CMike said:


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



he was never charged with either rape or sexual assault.

and even public figures can be libeled and slandered when you know that what you're saying is baseless.

just saying.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bill Clinton, President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. The charges, perjury, obstruction of justice, and malfeasance in office, arose from the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the Paula Jones lawsuit. The trial proceedings were largely partisan, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only five Democratic Representatives voting to impeach. In all, 55 senators voted not guilty, and 45 voted guilty on the perjury charge. The Senate also acquitted on the charge of obstruction, with 50 votes cast as not guilty, and 50 votes as guilty.[1] It was only the second impeachment of a President in American history, following the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868.


----------



## jillian (Apr 21, 2010)

CMike said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > CMike said:
> ...



no matter how many times you repeat the same slander, it doesn't make it true.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> > It's amazing how supposed "feminists" protect a rapist because they share the same political view.
> ...



You calling anyone stupid is beyond ironic.

Juanita Broaddick:

_Juanita Broaddrick&#8217;s story begins in 1978 &#8212; she was a registered nurse who had started her own nursing home in Van Buren, Arkansas.
Bill Clinton was the state attorney general who was running for governor:

Juanita Broaddrick: &#8220;I thought he was just something that was gonna be really good for Arkansas. Thought he was a very charismatic man, that had bright ideas for our state&#8230; I just really liked him.&#8221;

Broaddrick, whose married name at the time was Juanita Hickey, says she was so impressed with Clinton she volunteered to hand out bumper stickers and signs &#8212; her first and only political campaign. Broaddrick says she met Clinton for the first time when he made a campaign stop at her nursing home in the spring of 1978.

Juanita Broaddrick: &#8220;While he was there visiting, he said &#8216;If you&#8217;re ever in the, ah you know, Little Rock area, please drop by our campaign office,&#8217; and he said &#8216;be sure to call me when you come in and call down to the campaign office.&#8217;&#8221;

Broaddrick says not long after that conversation she did go to Little Rock for a nursing home meeting held at the Camelot Hotel &#8212; now the Doubletree. She says she checked into the hotel and the next morning called Clinton campaign headquarters. She says she was told Clinton was at his apartment and to call him there.

Juanita Broaddrick: &#8220;I did call and ask him if he was gonna be at the headquarters that day and he said no he didn&#8217;t plan to be there. He says, Clinton said, &#8216;Why don&#8217;t I just meet you for coffee in the Camelot coffee shop?&#8217;&#8221;

But Broaddrick says Clinton called later &#8212; she thinks it was around 9 in the morning &#8212; and asked if they could meet in her hotel room because there were reporters in the coffee shop.

Lisa Myers: &#8220;Did you think his interest in you at the time was personal or professional?&#8221;

Juanita Broaddrick: &#8220;I thought it was professional, completely.&#8221;
Myers: &#8220;So you thought this was going to be a business meeting?&#8221;

Broaddrick: &#8220;Yes I did, I really did.&#8221;

Myers: &#8220;Did you have qualms at all about him coming to the room?&#8221;

Broaddrick: &#8220;I was a little bit uneasy. But, I felt, ah, a real friendship toward this man and I didn&#8217;t really feel any, um any danger in him coming to my room. I sort of ushered us over to the coffee &#8212; I had coffee sitting on a little table over there by the window and it was a real pretty window view that looked down at the river. And he came around me and sort of put his arm over my shoulder to point to this little building and he said he was real interested if he became governor to restore that little building and then all of a sudden, he turned me around and started kissing me. And that was a real shock.&#8221;

Myers: &#8220;What did you do?&#8221;

Broaddrick: &#8220;I first pushed him away and just told him &#8216;No, please don&#8217;t do that,&#8221; and I forget, it&#8217;s been 21 years, Lisa, and I forget exactly what he was saying. It seems like he was making statements that would relate to &#8216;Did you not know why I was coming up here?&#8217; and I told him at the time, I said, &#8216;I&#8217;m married, and I have other things going on in my life, and this is something that I&#8217;m not interested in.&#8217;&#8221;

Myers: &#8220;Had you, that morning, or any other time, given him any reason to believe you might be receptive?&#8221;

Broaddrick: &#8220;No. None. None whatsoever.&#8221;

Myers: &#8220;Then what happens?&#8221;

Broaddrick: &#8220;Then he tries to kiss me again. And the second time he tries to kiss me he starts biting my lip (she cries). Just a minute... He starts to, um, bite on my top lip and I tried to pull away from him. (crying) And then he forces me down on the bed. And I just was very frightened, and I tried to get away from him and I told him &#8216;No,&#8217; that I didn&#8217;t want this to happen (crying) but he wouldn&#8217;t listen to me.&#8221;

Myers: &#8220;Did you resist, did you tell him to stop?&#8221;

Broaddrick: &#8220;Yes, I told him &#8216;Please don&#8217;t.&#8217; He was such a different person at that moment, he was just a vicious awful person.&#8221;

Myers: &#8220;You said there was a point at which you stopped resisting?&#8221;

Broaddrick: &#8220;Yeah.&#8221;

Myers: &#8220;Why?&#8221;

Broaddrick: &#8220;It was a real panicky, panicky situation. I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to &#8216;Please stop.&#8217; And that&#8217;s when he pressed down on my right shoulder and he would bite my lip.&#8221;

Broaddrick also says the waist of her skirt and her pantyhose were torn.

Juanita Broaddrick: &#8220;When everything was over with, he got up and straightened himself, and I was crying at the moment and he walks to the door, and calmly puts on his sunglasses. And before he goes out the door he says &#8216;You better get some ice on that.&#8217; And he turned and went out the door.&#8221;

Myers: &#8220;On your lip?&#8221;

Broaddrick: &#8220;Yeah.&#8221;

Broaddrick estimates Clinton was in her room less than 30 minutes.

*Myers: &#8220;Is there any way at all that Bill Clinton could have thought that this was consensual?&#8221;

Broaddrick: &#8220;No. Not with what I told him, and with how I tried to push him away. It was not consensual.&#8221;

Myers: &#8220;You&#8217;re saying that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted you, that he raped you.&#8221;

Broaddrick: &#8220;Yes.&#8221;

Myers: &#8220;And there is no doubt in your mind that that&#8217;s what happened?&#8221;

Broaddrick: &#8220;No doubt whatsoever.&#8221;*_


Full transcript of Dateline report


----------



## jillian (Apr 21, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Juanita Broaddick:
> 
> 
> Full transcript of Dateline report



1. you need to cut down what you posted, copy part and link to the rest.

2. obviously no one in law enforcement thought much of what she had to say.

again, repetition doesn't make it so, particularly with an unreliable witness.

no matter how much you are all still deranged with clinton hysteria.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

Why did she CHANGE HER STORY 20 years later?


----------



## boedicca (Apr 21, 2010)

Why do a lot of women keep from reporting rapes?

It is quite common that they don't.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

CMike said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > CMike said:
> ...



Hes not my hero.

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


----------



## boedicca (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...




He didn't say that every man ever accused of rape is guilty.  He only mentioned Bill Clinton - who has a pattern of predatory sexual behavior.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Why do a lot of women keep from reporting rapes?
> 
> It is quite common that they don't.



So you say every woman who claims she was raped is telling the truth and the man should be labeled a rapist for the rest of his life on no evidence?


----------



## teapartysamurai (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Why did she attend a Clinton fundraiser three weeks after he supposedly raped her??????
> 
> 
> 
> Juanita Broaddrick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 
That didn't stop liberals from claiming stuff about Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill followed him to his next job.

Good for the goose is good for the gander.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > CMike said:
> ...



Consentual sex is not rape.

He has a pattern of consentual sex


----------



## jillian (Apr 21, 2010)

teapartysamurai said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Why did she attend a Clinton fundraiser three weeks after he supposedly raped her??????
> ...




what on earth are you babbling about? for real... you can't compare the two circumstances. you wackos spent 70 million dollars investigating bill clinton. if there was anything to this, it would have been addressed by kenny "witch hunt" starr"

and the rightwingnuts sure gave thomas a pass for actual (instead of made up) sexual harassment, didn't y'all?


----------



## Nonelitist (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...




I agree.

Lets have a criminal trial ... or at least a grand jury to determine if it should go to trial.  Agree to that?  Let the "victim" have their day in court.

While on the subject.... what do you think of Clarence Thomas?


----------



## CMike (Apr 21, 2010)

At that time Bill Clinton was attorney general, I can certainly understand how she would feel that he would crush her, if she tried to make formal charges.


----------



## Rinata (Apr 21, 2010)

CMike said:


> Bill Clinton should be in prison for rape.



And you should be in a straight jacket. How typical of a right winger to only care about a president's sex life instead of how he ran the country.

Bill Clinton was completely sabatoged by the Republicans because they were so pissed that he cheated Bush 41 out of a second term. And they are doing the same thing to Obama.

What lousy sports they are and always have been. Sour grapes!!!


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

You cant have a trial is there is not enough evidence to proove anything.

I think Thomas is led arround by his nose by the other right wing justices


----------



## boedicca (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Why do a lot of women keep from reporting rapes?
> ...




I call Shenanigans.

Your rhetorical pattern is very tiresome.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

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


----------



## boedicca (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...




He also has a pattern of predatory sexual behavior.    And the few women who have had the courage to speak out have been smeared and assaulted by the Clinton Machine.  Not much of an incentive for any others that may exist to come forward.

And that's the point.  It's abuse of power against the relatively powerless - one of the worst things someone in a position of power can do.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

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


----------



## boedicca (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


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




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

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


----------



## Nonelitist (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> You cant have a trial is there is not enough evidence to proove anything.
> 
> I think Thomas is led arround by his nose by the other right wing justices




Why would you think such a racist thing?


----------



## hboats (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> hboats said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



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

Rick


----------



## CMike (Apr 21, 2010)

Also Bush didn't lie about WMD.


----------



## jillian (Apr 21, 2010)

hboats said:


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



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

-- j


----------



## Nonelitist (Apr 21, 2010)

jillian said:


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





The entire Government thought Iraq had WMDs.

The entire Democratic party thought he did.

You guys are dishonest idiots.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 21, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> ]
> The entire Government thought Iraq had WMDs.
> 
> The entire Democratic party thought he did.
> ...




So did the UN and our allies.


----------



## Nonelitist (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> You cant have a trial is there is not enough evidence to proove anything.
> 
> I think Thomas is led arround by his nose by the other right wing justices




What do you think about Clarence Thomas and the Anita Hill thing.

Be honest... I know it will be hard for you.


----------



## CMike (Apr 21, 2010)

The World - Germs, Atoms and Poison Gas - The Iraqi Shell Game - NYTimes.com


The authors, Gary Milhollin and Kelly Nugent, based their work principally on reports from the United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency, and statements by Richard Butler, the commission's chief inspector. POISON GAS 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- At least 3.9 tons of VX nerve gas. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits producing this amount in 1988 and 1990. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- The gas was low quality and the effort to make it failed. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- VX nerve gas put into warheads. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- U.S. and French tests found traces of nerve gas on warhead remnants. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- The evidence was planted. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- About 600 tons of ingredients for VX gas. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Out of 805 tons on hand, only 191 could be verified as destroyed. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Everything was destroyed or consumed in production. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Up to 3,000 tons of other poison gas agents. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits producing agents in the 1980's. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- They were used, thrown away or destroyed by U.S. bombs during the 1991 gulf war. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Several hundred additional tons of poison gas agents that Iraq may have produced. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq had enough ingredients to make more poison gas than it admits producing. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- All poison gas production has been declared.

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- 4,000 tons of ingredients to make poison gas. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits importing or producing them. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- No records of what happened to them are available. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- 500 bombs with parachutes to deliver gas or germ payloads. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits producing them. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- They were secretly destroyed. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- About 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits they existed. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- They were lost shortly after the gulf war. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- 107,500 casings for chemical arms HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits producing or importing them. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- No records are available. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- 31,658 filled and empty chemical munitions. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits producing or importing them. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- They were thrown away, destroyed secretly or destroyed by U.S. bombs. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- An Iraqi Air Force document showing how much poison gas was used against Iran, and thus how much Iraq has left. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- A U.N. inspector held the document briefly in her hands before Iraq confiscated it. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Inspectors might be able to see it, but only in the presence of the Secretary General's personal envoy. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- The results of a project to make binary artillery shells for sarin nerve gas. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits it ran such a project and made experimental shells. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- There are no records or physical traces of the program. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Production procedures for making poison gas. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Such proceedures are needed for large-scale production. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- No documents containing these procedures can be found. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Documents showing the overall size of the chemical weapons program. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Inspectors determined that specific documents are still missing. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- No such documents can be found. 

GERM WARFARE AGENTS UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- At least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits filling this many. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- They were secretly destroyed. UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- At least 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflotoxin and botulinum). HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits producing them. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- They were secretly destroyed. 


UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Excess germ warfare agent. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits producing more of the agent than was used to fill munitions. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- The excess was secretly destroyed. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Spraying equipment to deliver germ agents by helicopter. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits it tested such equipment. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Iraq refuses to explain what happened to it. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- The results of a project to deliver germ agents by drop tanks. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits the project existed, but inspectors cannot verify Iraq's account. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Everything has been accounted for. 


UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Growth media to produce three or four times the amount of anthrax Iraq admits producing. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- U.N. inspectors discovered that this much was imported. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Either the material was not imported or it went to a civilian lab. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Equipment to produce germ agents. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq provided an incomplete inventory. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Everything has been accounted for. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Program to dry germ agents so they are easier to store and use. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Inspectors saw a document revealing the program's existence. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- No such program existed. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Log book showing purchases for the germ warfare program. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Inspectors saw the log book in 1995. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- The book cannot be found. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- List of imported ingredients for germ agents. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits the document exists. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- The document cannot be found. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- List of ingredients for germ agents stored at Iraq's main germ facility. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits the document exists. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- The document cannot be found. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- The total amount of germ agents Iraq produced (anthrax, botulinum, gas gangrene, aflatoxin). HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Production capacity far exceeds the amount Iraq admits producing. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Iraq did not use full capacity. 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Components for three to four implosion-type nuclear weapons, lacking only uranium fuel. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Intelligence gathered by the former U.N. inspector Scott Ritter. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Such weapons do not exist. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Drawings showing the latest stage of Iraq's nuclear weapon design. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Inspectors determined the drawings must exist. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Cannot explain why the drawings are missing. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Design drawings of individual nuclear weapon components, including the precise dimensions of explosive lenses. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Other drawings show that these drawings. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Iraq no longer has these drawings exist. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Drawings of how to mate a nuclear warhead to a missile. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Other drawings show that these drawings exist. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Iraq no longer has these drawings. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Documents detailing cooperation among various Iraqi nuclear weapon and missile groups. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- The cooperation must have generated a paper trail. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- No response. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Documents revealing how far Iraq got in developing centrifuges to process uranium to weapons grade. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq tested one or two prototypes. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- The documents were secretly destroyed. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- 170 technical reports explaining how to produce and operate these centrifuges. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits a German supplier provided them, and a few were found. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- The documents were secretly destroyed. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Materials and equipment belonging to Iraq's most advanced nuclear weapon design team. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Inspectors have determined that important items are still missing. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Iraq has provided everything it can find. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Materials and equipment belonging to the group trying to process uranium to nuclear weapons grade. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Inspectors have determined that important items are still missing WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Iraq has provided everything it can find. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- The name and whereabouts of a foreign national who offered to help Iraq's nuclear program. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Inspectors were informed that the offer was made. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Inspectors should consult an Iraqi expatriate who might provide a lead. (They did; it was a dead end.) 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Documents proving Iraq's claim that it abandoned its secret nuclar-bomb program. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Inspectors determined that such a step must have been recorded. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- No records can be found. BALLISTIC MISSILES U

NACCOUNTED FOR -- Seven, locally-produced ballistic missiles. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits it had them. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- They were secretly destroyed in 1991. UNACCOUNTED FOR -- Two operational missiles that Iraq imported. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits it had them. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- They were secretly destroyed in 1991. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR -- Components for missile guidance that Iraq imported. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq supplied an inventory but it was incomplete. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- They were secretly destroyed. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR -- Up to 150 tons of material for missile production. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits it had it; destruction could not be verified. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- It was secretly melted or dumped into rivers and canals. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR -- Liquid fuel for long-range missiles. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits it had them. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- It was secretly destroyed and will not be discussed further. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR -- Up to 50 Scud-type missile warheads, presumably for high exposives. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits it had them. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- They were secretly destroyed. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR -- Drawings showing how to together a Scud missile. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq needed such drawings to produce these missiles. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- All available drawings were provided.


----------



## CMike (Apr 21, 2010)

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." 
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." 
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." 
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S 
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." 
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998 

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." 
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." 
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." 
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." 
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." 
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." 
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." 
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." 
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." 
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." 
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. 
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." 
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." 
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." 
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > You cant have a trial is there is not enough evidence to proove anything.
> ...



I think she may have been telling the truth but do you see me running arround calling Thomas a sexual harrasser every thim his name is mentioned?

BTW I am female and have had teh same shit done to me at work and never reported it.


I would never forgo reporting a rape.


----------



## Nonelitist (Apr 21, 2010)

Cmon Jill... and Truth.... 

Keep talking..... cause you just got schooled in the matter of what truth is.

Idiots.


----------



## xsited1 (Apr 21, 2010)

jillian said:


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



Bill Clinton brought it all on himself.  Aside from being a lifelong philanderer, he is a man almost completely devoid of character and a chronic liar.  For many of us, character _does _matter.


----------



## Nonelitist (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Are you sure you don't want to amend that?  Cause I am darn sure we can find past comments from you about how you feel about Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill.

I guess you just don't believe a black man can be a good Supreme Court Justice.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

Your hate is blinding you


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



Go get em


----------



## hboats (Apr 21, 2010)

jillian said:


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



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

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

Rick


----------



## jillian (Apr 21, 2010)

hboats said:


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



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


----------



## hboats (Apr 21, 2010)

The FACT remains that what Bill Clinton did in the Oval Office with an intern was sexual harassment.  Having sexual relations with an intern in the workplace is sexual harassment and in ANY other job in this country Bill Clinton would have been fired immediately.

Rick


----------



## Nonelitist (Apr 21, 2010)

jillian said:


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





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


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

hboats said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > hboats said:
> ...



Document your claim


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > hboats said:
> ...



Do you remember how many of them refused to back us in Iraq due to the lies?






"The FACT remains that what Bill Clinton did in the Oval Office with an intern was sexual harassment. Having sexual relations with an intern in the workplace is sexual harassment and in ANY other job in this country Bill Clinton would have been fired immediately.

Rick "


Do you have a copy of the law that says sex in a office is illegal?

it was consentual


----------



## hboats (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> hboats said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Give me a fucking break.  You called me a liar at least three times and I asked you to point out at least three times ANY lie that I've posted.  You didn't, and can't.

Rick


----------



## Nonelitist (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...





No.... I don't.  Please inform me.


----------



## hboats (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Do you really not know how to read?  Please give me exactly where in the above quote I said that "sex in a office is illegal."  What I said is "sexual relations with an intern in the workplace is sexual harassment."  Please tell me that you do know that sex between a supervisor and their subordinate is considered sexual harassment weather it is mutually agreed upon or not.  It is considered sexual harassment because there is a tendency to give unfair advantages to someone with whom you're having a relationship.  In any other job in the country such a relationship is grounds for immediate dismissal.

Oh, and I'm with Nonelitist, I'd like to see the list of the countries that refused to back us as well.

Rick


----------



## hboats (Apr 21, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



I'm guessing TM won't be returning to this thread to answer for her idiotic posts and lies.

Rick


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

How is it sexual harrasment when its consentual


----------



## hboats (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> How is it sexual harrasment when its consentual



I actually explained that in the post.  Please don't make me do it again.  READ THE POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rick


----------



## CMike (Apr 21, 2010)

The crime that Clinton performed was lying to the grand jury and obstructing justice.

Paula Jones had a legal right to have truthful testimony in her sexual harassment suit.


----------



## hboats (Apr 21, 2010)

hboats said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Still waiting for you to enlighten us TM.  What's wrong, can't do it?

Rick


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 21, 2010)

teapartysamurai said:


> > Former President Bill Clinton last week inadvertently demonstrated Karl Marx's shrewd observation, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." The historical event in question is the attempt to deter by smearing a broad-based, popular, American anti-high-tax, anti-big-central government movement as likely to induce seditious violence against the government.
> >
> > The historic example of this calumny was Alexander Hamilton's slander against Thomas Jefferson and James Madison's emerging Republican/Democratic Party. The first repetition, as tragedy, was Bill Clinton's attack on the Republican Contract With America rhetoric following the Oklahoma bombing in 1995 - which resulted in deflecting the upward progress of conservatism from the summer of 1995 onward.
> >
> ...




UH nice spin (as usual) but did you happen to forget the guy who flew a plane into a building that housed IRS offices a while back over his complaints about taxes and government? Sounds like a tea party kind of guy to me. 

BTW since you started thsi thread with nothing but a smear attempt does that mean that you are not on the side with the truth?? LOL


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

Did the UN join us in Iraq?


----------



## hboats (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Did the UN join us in Iraq?



Do you really not know the answer to this question?

Rick


----------



## hboats (Apr 21, 2010)

drsmith1072 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > > Former President Bill Clinton last week inadvertently demonstrated Karl Marx's shrewd observation, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." The historical event in question is the attempt to deter by smearing a broad-based, popular, American anti-high-tax, anti-big-central government movement as likely to induce seditious violence against the government.
> ...



Uh nice spin (as usual) but did you happen to forget the guy who flew a plane into a building that housed IRS offices a while back over his complaints about Bush and health care reform while spouting the Socialist's creed?  Oh, he was also a registered Democrat.  Sounds like an Obama supporter to me.

Rick


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 21, 2010)

2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing


----------



## hboats (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> 2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



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

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

Rick


----------



## teapartysamurai (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


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


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


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 21, 2010)

CMike said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## teapartysamurai (Apr 21, 2010)

jillian said:


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


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



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


&#12288;


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


 


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


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


----------



## teapartysamurai (Apr 21, 2010)

jillian said:


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


 
Pt 2!



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


 


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


 


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


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

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


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 21, 2010)

CMike said:


> Here is another Bill Clinton victim of him being a sexual predator.
> 
> Sex Assault Accuser Lobs Fresh Charges At Clinton Duo - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com
> 
> ...


_

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

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


----------



## teapartysamurai (Apr 21, 2010)

jillian said:


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


 
Part 3!



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


 


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


 


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


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


----------



## teapartysamurai (Apr 21, 2010)

drsmith1072 said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> > Here is another Bill Clinton victim of him being a sexual predator.
> ...


_

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

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

This is how it works in the liberal world.

_


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Why did she attend a Clinton fundraiser three weeks after he supposedly raped her??????
> 
> 
> 
> Juanita Broaddrick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



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



> The side with the truth doesn't need smears



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


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 21, 2010)

xsited1 said:


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



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

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


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> There is no reason to believe the woman was raped if she refused to go to the police when she had the REAL evidence that could proove the crime.
> 
> Hell she could of at least gone to a Dr and saved the evidence of the crime.
> 
> Lets remember that to be convicted of a crime there needs to be evidence beyond he said she said.



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

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

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

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

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


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 21, 2010)

hboats said:


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



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

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

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

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

It's all just another example of republcians hypocrisy.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 21, 2010)

hboats said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Please provide any evidence this tape has been debunked?
> ...



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

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


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 21, 2010)

CMike said:


> hboats said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...




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

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



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


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



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


----------



## CMike (Apr 21, 2010)

drsmith1072 said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> > hboats said:
> ...


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


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 21, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > nothing but right wing lies just like Obama is a muslim, socialist Kenyan.
> ...



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

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


----------



## xsited1 (Apr 21, 2010)

drsmith1072 said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > CMike said:
> ...



Yep.  

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

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


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 21, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > hboats said:
> ...



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

Democrats in congress relied on info they were given.

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

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


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 21, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> hboats said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



They can't and they won't

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


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 21, 2010)

hboats said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



Nice spin however, based on what I have read his opinion seems in line with the tea party so care to provide some proof of your claims??


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 21, 2010)

hboats said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > 2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



coalition of the willing proves you wrong and instead of being hoenst and admitting that FACT you lash out and attack. How typical.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Apr 21, 2010)

drsmith1072 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Why did she attend a Clinton fundraiser three weeks after he supposedly raped her??????
> ...


 
Smear Clinton????????  

There is a lot more evidence against Clinton for being a sexual harrasser et al, than there is for his charges of violence from the tea parties.

All this whine boils down to, is it's only okay to accuse conservatives.   No fair pointing out the hypocrisy of those doing the accusations.

And that would be Bill horndog Clinton who couldn't see fit to keep it in his pants while presiding over the free world.


----------



## CMike (Apr 21, 2010)

drsmith1072 said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." 
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." 
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." 
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S 
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." 
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998 

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." 
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." 
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." 
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." 
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." 
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." 
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." 
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." 
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." 
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." 
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. 
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." 
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." 
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." 
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


----------



## teapartysamurai (Apr 22, 2010)

CMike said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...


 
Now now now!

No fair reminding liberals that they are lying their teeth out about Bush cherry picking the evidence.


----------



## hboats (Apr 22, 2010)

drsmith1072 said:


> hboats said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



So, you didn't read his creed that was online before he flew his plane into the building?  Oh, I get it, you're like Dante who takes only what he wants to out of what this whack job wrote.  Fact of the matter is, he wrote that he hated Bush, and that he wanted government run health care and the socialist creed was at the bottom of his rant.  He was also a registered Democrat.

Yes, he was upset over taxes, but putting EVERYTHING that he wrote together and not cherry picking what you want to pull out to try to make one group or another look bad, he was just a confused whack job who took his frustrations out in a stupid way.

I don't honestly think he was a Democrat or Republican or Tea Party supporter, unlike you, I can look at the whole picture and say that this was one messed up human being who probably didn't even know what he was willing to put his life on the line for.  I don't have to make it about politics.

What I was doing is showing how your idiotic post could just as easily be turned around to support a differing viewpoint, no less idiotic than yours, but it still fits non the less.

Rick


----------



## CMike (Apr 22, 2010)

teapartysamurai said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...


Lefties have very selective memory.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 22, 2010)

teapartysamurai said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...


Cherry pick those WMDs we found.....what?  Wait.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 22, 2010)

teapartysamurai said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > CMike said:
> ...


_

Really?? where did I say any of that?? oh you mean I didn't say any of that and your post is nothing more that you usual dishoensty from YOU. 

Thanks for the spin let me know when you want to actually debate anything that I have actually said._


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 22, 2010)

CMike said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > CMike said:
> ...



Nice spin but clinton's affair with lewinsky had NO bearing on whether he harrassed jones or not. 

They are two seperate events that have nothing to do with each other. The fact that you believe it COULD sway the opinions of a jury is not proof that it was pertinent to the case being tried. 

So honestly how did something that happened YEARS after the event in question have bearing on the event?? Care to explain??


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 22, 2010)

teapartysamurai said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



WOW more spin. Is that all you have to offer?? You are trying to smear clinton because he came out and spoke and you don't like what he had to say. Your own smears show that the truth is not on your side and that is YOUR own standard. YOU set the standard so please keep the whining to a minimum when YOUR own standard is applied to YOUR statements.


----------



## CMike (Apr 22, 2010)

drsmith1072 said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...


That was up for the grand jury to decide, not you.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 22, 2010)

CMike said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



*Nice avoidance but what does that have to do with the FACT that YOU were either LYING about the UN or INGORANT of the fact that the UN did not support the invasion of iraq and that W had to form the coalition of the willing*?? 

Furthermore, how does posting quotes of what righties at that time called lies, as you try to use what righties called LIES in a desperate and dishonest attempt to defend W and his claims?? LOL   If they were lies back when the dems made those statements as righties tried to claim then how does that help your attempt to defend W?? LOL


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 22, 2010)

teapartysamurai said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



LOL so you post quotes taken from democrats in an attempt to prove W didn't cherry pick when one has NOTHING to do with the other?? Care to explain how that works?? LOL 

Not very bright are you??


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 22, 2010)

hboats said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > hboats said:
> ...



LOL so when asked for proof you try to spin it to make excuses for not having proof of your claims. How typical. 

Funny thing is that my post was in response to a righty who was trying to blame attacks on liberals with no proof instead of "looking at the whole picture." 

So it's funny how you came after me while LYING in a desperate attempt to discredit me based on your LIES.

What was that statement from the OP?



> The side with the truth doesn't need smears



And yet you go out of your way to smear me when you admit that you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 22, 2010)

CMike said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > CMike said:
> ...



Nice spin but if it is up for a jury to decide then how can YOU claim that it was perjury?? Oops your own logic/spin shot your own argument in the foot. good job. LOL 

fact is that it was ONLY making false statements under oath and your previous spin and current avoidance of the debate shows that you know that to be the case.


----------

