Bill Clinton calls for "truth" - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

conformfailure · #16 (**permalink**) 09-08-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

You've missed the point, Sam.

Clinton is a documented liar.

Therefore, his denials about the Sudan / Bin Laden episode are suspect.

Because as a proven liar, Bill Clinton is not worthy of trust.

Matt

I don't understand why this is even being argued at all. What a complete waste of time.

Who cares what Clinton said. The maker of the fakeumentary admitted to making shit up! Clinton doesn't need to say anything about it. The fact that he did doesn't say anything. It's already been admitted by them and they have to change it.

"oh my god! Clinton is a liar and therefore him speaking on the 9/11 fakeumentary makes everything suspect!"

"but... ummm... the maker already admitted to making shit up for the fakeumentary"

"Oh"

Another horrible line of argument. Another Turkey Award for Matt.

MattLarson · #17 (**permalink**) 09-08-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by conformfailure

I don't understand why this is even being argued at all. What a complete waste of time.

Who cares what Clinton said. The maker of the fakeumentary admitted to making shit up! Clinton doesn't need to say anything about it. The fact that he did doesn't say anything. It's already been admitted by them and they have to change it.

"oh my god! Clinton is a liar and therefore him speaking on the 9/11 fakeumentary makes everything suspect!"

"but... ummm... the maker already admitted to making shit up for the fakeumentary"

"Oh"

Another horrible line of argument. Another Turkey Award for Matt.

You should change your name to comprehensionfailure.

I never said "oh my god! Clinton is a liar and therefore him speaking on the 9/11 fakeumentary makes everything suspect!". But hey, the bright side is it gives you and Clinton something in common - you are both liars.

I have repeatedly said that the documentary producer admitted "improvising" (i.e. making up) parts of the show.

And many of the former administration officials have pointed out problems with the film.

When Clinton says he didn't have a chance to take custody of Bin Laden, we have to look at that in the context of Clinton being a documented liar.

Matt

chassisman · #18 (**permalink**) 09-08-2006

People who lie are so bottom rung it is truly pathetic. Would like like to have friends that lie to you? a spouse that does? Employees? Bankers/Lenders? Retailers?
Well hell no, besides that , anyone who will lie to you will steal from you or sell you out.

I find it odd that some people don't object to a leader who held the highest office in our nation having these negative qualities. To them I say I'm glad their friends aren't mine.

conformfailure · #19 (**permalink**) 09-08-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

You should change your name to comprehensionfailure.

I never said "oh my god! Clinton is a liar and therefore him speaking on the 9/11 fakeumentary makes everything suspect!". But hey, the bright side is it gives you and Clinton something in common - you are both liars.

I have repeatedly said that the documentary producer admitted "improvising" (i.e. making up) parts of the show.

And many of the former administration officials have pointed out problems with the film.

When Clinton says he didn't have a chance to take custody of Bin Laden, we have to look at that in the context of Clinton being a documented liar.

Matt

Yes I understand that Matt, I know you know this, that's why I don't understand the Clinton spin.

Did Clinton create a foul in this incident? No. Did ABC foul? Yes. Yet your target is Clinton. You broke open the "Clinton Emergency Fire Hose" to was away the central issue! ABC was going to air a falsehood that would alter their view away from corresponding facts!

Yet Clinton is your focus. Matt you got so much propaganda in you, you constantly turn away from the central issue and run to sanctuaries like Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and Clinton. But you never ever stick to the central issue - in this case - ABC was going to show a complete falsehood where the maker admitting to making stuff - and it doesn't seem to bother you. You would rather revert back to history and just fish out stuff to attack Clinton with.

Everytime there is debate on these things, you take the path looking for those safetly nets of GOP talking points instead of the path of discovery.

MattLarson · #20 (**permalink**) 09-08-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by conformfailure

Yes I understand that Matt, I know you know this, that's why I don't understand the Clinton spin.

Did Clinton create a foul in this incident? No. Did ABC foul? Yes. Yet your target is Clinton. You broke open the "Clinton Emergency Fire Hose" to was away the central issue! ABC was going to air a falsehood that would alter their view away from corresponding facts!

No, what you fail to grasp is that it is possible to both condemn the ABC piece for including "improvisation" in what they allege is a documentary while at the same time noting that Clinton actually did have an opportunity to grab Bin Laden and didn't do it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by conformfailure

Yet Clinton is your focus. Matt you got so much propaganda in you, you constantly turn away from the central issue and run to sanctuaries like Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and Clinton. But you never ever stick to the central issue - in this case - ABC was going to show a complete falsehood where the maker admitting to making stuff - and it doesn't seem to bother you.

Another falsehood. You participated in the thread where I said the fabricated scenes made "the whole film suspect". I have called for the fabricated scenes to be deleted.

That doesn't jibe with your claim that it "doesn't seem to bother me".

Quote:

Originally Posted by conformfailure

You would rather revert back to history and just fish out stuff to attack Clinton with.

Everytime there is debate on these things, you take the path looking for those safetly nets of GOP talking points instead of the path of discovery.

The fact that so many points in the film have been disputed, but the point about Clinton passing on Bin Laden hasn't been, is interesting.

For Sam, I present this:

Quote:

Government let bin Laden slip, Gellman says
by lauren · Posted April 23, 2002; 09:41 p.m.
The United States government not only let Osama bin Laden slip through its fingers but later came dangerously close to accidentally killing one of its royal allies while pursuing the terrorist, according to a Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post correspondent.

Addressing "The War on Terror Before September 11," Barton Gellman offered an inside view of the deliberations on terror conducted by the Clinton and Bush administrations. He spoke Tuesday, April 23, at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs in Robertson Hall, Princeton University.

"There was an enormous amount going on under President Clinton that we did not know about at the time," explained Gellman, one of a team of eight Washington Post journalists who won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for coverage of September 11 and the subsequent war on terrorism.

Later, said Gellman, a 1982 Princeton graduate, President Bush's new policy team delved into "a fairly ambitious policy review on terrorism that we also didn't know. But they had not yet decided much before 9-11."

Gellman explained that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) didn't begin devoting much attention to bin Laden until 1996. That's when its Counter Terrorism Center initiated a new unit of analysts exclusively focusing on the problem after "terrorism and al Quaeda, in particular, began a pretty rapid transformation, in the U.S. government's view, from a tactical nuisance to strategic threat."

That's also when the U.S. "had a tantalizing chance" to apprehend bin Laden, according to Gellman, who is serving this semester as a Ferris Professor of Journalism in the Council for the Humanities .

Anxious to have his nation removed from the U.S. list of states that sponsored terrorists, Sudan's president sent a confidante to initiate a secret channel in a meeting with two CIA case officers in the Hyatt Arlington Hotel, outside of Washington, D.C., Gellman said. There they said that the Sudan "might hand over bin Laden if asked nicely enough."

"It's not at all clear that (the offer) would have been carried out," said Gellman. "But what is clear is that the Clinton administration did not put that offer fully to the test."

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/a...0C20/index.xml

Note: Gellman is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist, who was writing for the post. He clearly documents the opportunity Clinton had, and concludes that Clinton didn't make the effort.

Matt

MattLarson · #21 (**permalink**) 09-08-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samantha

I didn't admit to any such lie.

He was not offered Bin Laden. He caught wind of Sudan asking Saudi Arabia to take him. He couldn't legally do anything about it.

Sam, see the post above this - Clinton did have the chance, he just didn't pursue it.

Matt

Rakkasan · #22 (**permalink**) 09-08-2006

CLINTON WOULDNT KNOW THE TRUTH even when its blowing him............

hairballxavier · #23 (**permalink**) 09-08-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by chassisman

I saw Billy boy on CNN this afternoon saying that the makers of the 9-11 miniseries about what led up to the sept 11 attacks "should tell the truth".

Truth.......that's something we can all appreciate, right? The ironic thing is that Bill is the same president that I saw on my television wagging his finger at me (and the rest of America) while telling a bold faced lie. It was a lie that he later had to own , as we all know. A lot of democrats and liberals are going to jump in and say things like "it was nothing, just a BJ, it wasn't national security or war". The fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton is a liar, and liars don't simply make a bad judgement call now and then, it is ingrained into their very being. The fact that Clinton addressed the nation with his lie is proof positive that he doesn't feel that the American public deserves the truth, but now he wants to hold others accountable to standards and ethics that he could not muster himself.

Bill Clinton asking for "the truth" to be told...................what a concept!

Face it, Clinton didn't lie to you. Where is your proof of this accusation? Can you verify it?

chassisman · #24 (**permalink**) 09-08-2006

Like I said:

Quote:

A lot of democrats and liberals are going to jump in and say things like "it was nothing, just a BJ, it wasn't national security or war". The fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton is a liar, and liars don't simply make a bad judgement call now and then, it is ingrained into their very being. The fact that Clinton addressed the nation with his lie is proof positive that he doesn't feel that the American public deserves the truth, but now he wants to hold others accountable to standards and ethics that he could not muster himself.

I'm getting the message from some posters in this thread that lying is acceptable as long as national security is not at risk. So forgiving liberals........remember that when your spouse catches you cheating or the boss catches you lying,stealing, or falsifying records that you have an easy out . Tell them that you didn't really harm anyone, no one died. They'll understand. Just say sorry like Bill did and you can take a sort of liberal communion that will wash away your lie and it's biz as usual.......your credibility can remain the same.

iamwhatiseem · #25 (**permalink**) 09-08-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samantha

Of course there has to be a thread about Clinton's lying about having an affair during the time when the Senate Intelligence Committee comes out with a report that says the Bush administration lied us into war.

Hmmm.....which lie is worse for the country? Which lie got our soldiers killed? Hmmmm I wonder.

Sam, it could be said, and not without merit - that 9/11 may not have occurred at all, and therefore no Irai war if, on BOTH occasions, President Clinton would have apprehended Osama when he had the chance.

You see, Sam - I cannot help but realize that you are completely partisan if you consistently bash Bush for not catching him now - but give (and you have) a clear pass to Clinton for washing his hands when he had two absolute chances of catching him.

hairballxavier · #26 (**permalink**) 09-08-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lungfish

Really, it should be CARTER that we blame for 9/11, since he brokered the funding from private Saudi coffers to international islamic extremists in Afghanistan that were bent on stopping the Soviets, and provided training and weapons via Pakistan's ISI. Carter CREATED the Taliban.

Thats bullshit, can you back up that accusation that "Carter CREATED the Taliban"? Got a source? If you do, please post it so that I may rip it to shreds for the audience.

I challenge you to back up your anti-American defamitory disinformation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by samantha

Of course there has to be a thread about Clinton's lying about having an affair during the time when the Senate Intelligence Committee comes out with a report that says the Bush administration lied us into war.

What report said that? I think you are just making that shit up because you can't handle reality. That's my opinioon.

So where is this report that said BUSHCO "lied us into war"????

Helene · #27 (**permalink**) 09-08-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

When Clinton says he didn't have a chance to take custody of Bin Laden, we have to look at that in the context of Clinton being a documented liar.

Matt

Would you say that Bush is a documented liar?

Helene

chassisman · #28 (**permalink**) 09-08-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

Sam, it could be said, and not without merit - that 9/11 may not have occurred at all, and therefore no Irai war if, on BOTH occasions, President Clinton would have apprehended Osama when he had the chance.

You see, Sam - I cannot help but realize that you are completely partisan if you consistently bash Bush for not catching him now - but give (and you have) a clear pass to Clinton for washing his hands when he had two absolute chances of catching him.

Maybe she has a blue dress too.

chassisman · #29 (**permalink**) 09-08-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helene

Would you say that Bush is a documented liar?

Helene

I don't know if Matt does but I'd say no at this point. If there had been the evidence that an intentional lie had been told intended to decieve the American people, he'd have faced what Clinton did.......why, do you have documented proof ?

Helene · #30 (**permalink**) 09-08-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

Thats bullshit, can you back up that accusation that " Carter CREATED the Taliban"? Got a source? If you do please post it so that I may rip it to shreds for the audience.

I challenge you to back up your anti-American defamitory disinformation.

I don't know which American president funded the Afghani terrorism against the Soviet Union, but they certainly did train about 35,000 of them. And yes, that became the taliban. The covert CIA operation started in 1979. That must have been Carter, right?

Helene

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes