09/26/2006
News: Spencer Tracy's Hustler, iPhone, Janet Jackson, Condi Rice
Condoleezza Rice snarls back after Clinton 9/11 interview: "The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that."
New bio Kate: The Woman Who Was Hepburn
Judge tosses out David Gest assault suit against Liza Minnelli. Judge: "The plaintiff complaint must be dismissed in its entirety. There is no triable issue of fact."
REPORT: Cingular to be exclusive carrier for Apple iPhone at launch.
Kylie Minogue: author.
The NYT hits up the new, slim Janet Jackson.
Gay British couple searching for other gay families in rural England criticized for placing images of their children on Gaydar website: "The couple resides in the English countryside and opportunities for meeting other gay families and gay men are limited. So they posted family photographs on a registered gay website designed to help gay men find new friends, companions and network professionally. Child safety campaigners are angry, accusing the gay couple of putting their children at risk of being identified by pedophiles, kidnappers and assorted crazies."
Posted 9:15 AM EST by Andy Towle in 9/11, Apple, Books, Condoleezza Rice, Great Britain, Janet Jackson, Kylie Minogue, News, Spencer Tracy | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Presidential Daily Brief
PDB 1 month prior to 9/11 went through Condi's hands and across Bush's desk ,she testified to the 9/11 comission, titled "Bin Laden determined to attack America" detailing the use of airplanes as weapons.
Bush went on vacation at the ranch
Facts are facts while condi's sound bites are all huff puff and fury with no substance
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Sep 26, 2006 9:18:01 AM
Keith olberman
MSNBC
And finally tonight, a Special Comment about President Clinton’s interview. The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong. It is not essential that a past President, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.
It is not important that the current President’s "portable public chorus" has described his predecessor’s tone as "crazed."
Our tone should be crazed. The nation’s freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as Al-Qaeda; the nation’s "marketplace of ideas" is being poisoned, by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would’ve quit. Nonetheless.
The headline is this: Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done, in five years. He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.
"At least I tried," he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. "That’s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried."
Thus in his supposed emeritus years, has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as courageous as any of his presidency; action as startling and as liberating, as any, by anyone, in these last five long years.
The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama Bin Laden before 9/11.
The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors.
The Bush Administration did not understand the Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."
The Bush Administration… did… not… try.—
Moreover, for the last five years one month and two weeks, the current administration, and in particular the President, has been given the greatest "pass" for incompetence and malfeasance, in American history!
President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs — some of them, 17 years old — before Pearl Harbor.
President Hoover was correctly blamed for — if not the Great Depression itself — then the disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the Stock Market Crash.
Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War — though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.
But not this President.
To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been President on September 11th, 2001 — or the nearly eight months that preceded it.
That hardly reflects the honesty nor manliness we expect of the Executive.
But if his own fitness to serve is of no true concern to him, perhaps we should simply sigh and keep our fingers crossed, until a grown-up takes the job three Januarys from now.
Except… for this:
After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts — that he was President on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history, and attempting to make the responsibility, entirely Mr. Clinton’s.
Of course he is not honest enough to do that directly.
As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him, by proxy.
Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News, Friday afternoon.
Consider the timing: The very same weekend the National Intelligence Estimate would be released and show the Iraq war to be the fraudulent failure it is — not a check on terror, but fertilizer for it!
The kind of proof of incompetence, for which the administration and its hyenas at Fox need to find a diversion, in a scapegoat.
It was the kind of cheap trick which would get a journalist fired — but a propagandist, promoted:
Promise to talk of charity and generosity; but instead launch into the lies and distortions with which the Authoritarians among us attack the virtuous and reward the useless.
And don’t even be professional enough to assume the responsibility for the slanders yourself; blame your audience for "e-mailing" you the question.
Mr. Clinton responded as you have seen.
He told the great truth un-told… about this administration’s negligence, perhaps criminal negligence, about Bin Laden.
He was brave.
Then again, Chris Wallace might be braver still. Had I — in one moment surrendered all my credibility as a journalist — and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career selling seeds by mail.
The smearing by proxy, of course, did not begin Friday afternoon.
Disney was first to sell-out its corporate reputation, with "The Path to 9/11."
Of that company’s crimes against truth one needs to say little. Simply put: someone there enabled an Authoritarian zealot to belch out Mr. Bush’s new and improved history.
The basic plot-line was this: because he was distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9/11.
The most curious and in some ways the most infuriating aspect of this slapdash theory, is that the Right Wingers who have advocated it — who try to sneak it into our collective consciousness through entertainment, or who sandbag Mr. Clinton with it at news interviews — have simply skipped past its most glaring flaw.
Had it been true that Clinton had been distracted from the hunt for Bin Laden in 1998 because of the Lewinsky nonsense — why did these same people not applaud him for having bombed Bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan and Sudan on August 20th of that year? For mentioning Bin Laden by name as he did so?
That day, Republican Senator Grams of Minnesota invoked the movie "Wag The Dog."
Republican Senator Coats of Indiana questioned Mr. Clinton’s judgment.
Republican Senator Ashcroft of Missouri — the future Attorney General — echoed Coats.
Even Republican Senator Arlen Specter questioned the timing.
And of course, were it true Clinton had been "distracted" by the Lewinsky witch-hunt — who on earth conducted the Lewinsky witch-hunt? Who turned the political discourse of this nation on its head for two years?
Who corrupted the political media?
Who made it impossible for us to even bring back on the air, the counter-terrorism analysts like Dr. Richard Haass, and James Dunegan, who had warned, at this very hour, on this very network, in early 1998, of cells from the Middle East who sought to attack us, here?
Who preempted them… in order to strangle us with the trivia that was… "All Monica All The Time"?
Who… distracted whom?
This is, of course, where — as is inevitable — Mr. Bush and his henchmen prove not quite as smart as they think they are.
The full responsibility for 9/11 is obviously shared by three administrations, possibly four.
But, Mr. Bush, if you are now trying to convince us by proxy that it’s all about the distractions of 1998 and 1999, then you will have to face a startling fact that your minions may have hidden from you.
The distractions of 1998 and 1999, Mr. Bush, were carefully manufactured, and lovingly executed, not by Bill Clinton… but by the same people who got you… elected President.
Thus instead of some commendable acknowledgment that you were even in office on 9/11 and the lost months before it… we have your sleazy and sloppy rewriting of history, designed by somebody who evidently redd the Orwell playbook too quickly.
Thus instead of some explanation for the inertia of your first eight months in office, we are told that you have kept us "safe" ever since — a statement that might range anywhere from Zero, to One Hundred Percent, true.
We have nothing but your word, and your word has long since ceased to mean anything.
And, of course, the one time you have ever given us specifics about what you have kept us safe from, Mr. Bush — you got the name of the supposedly targeted Tower in Los Angeles… wrong.
Thus was it left for the previous President to say what so many of us have felt; what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the attack:
You did not try.
You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor.
You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people.
Then, you blamed your predecessor.
That would be the textbook definition… Sir, of cowardice.
To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past.
That was one of the great mechanical realities Eric Blair — writing as George Orwell — gave us in the novel "1984."
The great philosophical reality he gave us, Mr. Bush, may sound as familiar to you, as it has lately begun to sound familiar to me.
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power…
"Power is not a means; it is an end.
"One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.
"The object of persecution, is persecution. The object of torture, is torture. The object of power… is power."
Earlier last Friday afternoon, before the Fox ambush, speaking in the far different context of the closing session of his remarkable Global Initiative, Mr. Clinton quoted Abraham Lincoln’s State of the Union address from 1862.
"We must disenthrall ourselves."
Mr. Clinton did not quote the rest of Mr. Lincoln’s sentence. He might well have.
"We must disenthrall ourselves — and then… we shall save our country."
And so has Mr. Clinton helped us to disenthrall ourselves, and perhaps enabled us, even at this late and bleak date… to save… our… country.
—
The "free pass" has been withdrawn, Mr. Bush…
You did not act to prevent 9/11.
We do not know what you have done, to prevent another 9/11.
You have failed us — then leveraged that failure, to justify a purposeless war in Iraq which will have, all too soon, claimed more American lives than did 9/11.
You have failed us anew in Afghanistan.
And you have now tried to hide your failures, by blaming your predecessor.
And now you exploit your failure, to rationalize brazen torture — which doesn’t work anyway; which only condemns our soldiers to water-boarding; which only humiliates our country further in the world; and which no true American would ever condone, let alone advocate.And there it is, sir:
Are yours the actions of a true American?
I’m K.O., good night, and good luck.
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Sep 26, 2006 9:41:22 AM
Richard Clarke:
Richard Clarke himself debunked the story in a background briefing with reporters. He said he presented two things to the incoming Bush administration: “One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to any new conclusions from ‘98 on.”
A reporter asked: “Were all of those issues part of an alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to — ”
“There was never a plan, Andrea,” Clarke answered. “What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.”
“So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?
“There was no new plan.”
“No new strategy? I mean, I mean, I don’t want to get into a semantics — “
“Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.”
“Had those issues evolved at all from October of ‘98 until December of 2000?”
“Had they evolved? Not appreciably.”
Amid all the controversy, some former Clinton-administration officials began to pull back on their story. One of them — who asked not to be named — told NR that Time didn’t have it quite right. “There were certainly ongoing efforts throughout the eight years of the Clinton administration to fight terrorism,” the official said. “It was certainly not a formal war plan. We wouldn’t have characterized it as a formal war plan. The Bush administration was briefed on the Clinton administration’s ongoing efforts and threat assessments.” That, of course, was pretty much what the Bush White House said had had happened all along.
But now, the story is back in the news. “At least I tried [to destroy al Qaeda],” Clinton told Fox. “That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn’t…I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy…”
Posted by: Mitch | Sep 26, 2006 9:49:41 AM
I stood up and cheered when I watched the [incessant] rebroadcast of PRESIDENT Clinton on Fox. I stood up and cheered when Jon Stewart replayed the broadcast, then intercut the follow on Fox talking-head pundits to talk about how out of context PRESIDENT Clinton was, and Mr. Stewarts final comment of "Well, who the FUCK are you?". PRESIDENT Clinton, for all his past indisgressions, said exactly what I wanted ot hear a real Democrat say. The gloves are off, the Bush crap is finally called on the carpet by the one person who's opinion actually means something in this world.
Bill Clinton was the President. He had every right to say what he said. He is the one person who was there, in the center of it all.
It is unfortunate that here it is, Tuesday after the Fox broadcast, and only one or two elected democrats have opened up their pie holes to back up Bill Clinton. That SHOULD have been the rally cry to take back our Government and out United States from the theocratic terrorists who are currently in charge.
Rade
Posted by: Rad | Sep 26, 2006 10:06:28 AM
Mitch
I have a question for you
What do you think of the new "terror" bill that Mccain and groupies caved on???
The one that kills Habeus Corpus
The one that states that you can be designated an enemy of america, arrested in the middle of the night, detained in a secret prison, tortured, oh and
NO JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT
You won't be able to take your case to court
400 years of western civilization down the drain. habeus Corpus came about via the Magna Carta.
If this bill passes then the terrorists have won
because America will be dead
move over my canadaian brothers.....I am going to be running across the border soon dressed in a Giant maple leaf
Anyway; Mitch keep defending bush and company. america is dead at his hands. Due to your being gay your pap dog tactics will not save you from the coming storm
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Sep 26, 2006 10:06:47 AM
Jimmyboyo, why are you changing the subject now? The terror bill is interesting, and I do derive a sense of psychic well-being from the fact that violent Muslim terrorists are going to experience more physical discomfort, but that has nothing to do with Mitch's point about Richard Clarke. Which is excellent and deserves further inquiry.
You do remember Richard Clarke, don't you? The guy whose book Clinton plugged in his staged outrage on Fox News? (BTW Clarke's book holding steady at #14 on the Amazon list; the other book recently endorsed by a political wacko losing his marbles in front of the cameras, Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival" back to #1 after slipping a bit).
Anyways, yes Richard Clarke. As you can see by Mitch's quote, Clarke is saying Clinton didn't leave Bush a plan. "There never was a plan." "There was no new plan."
Which, if you notice, is directly contradicting what you said earlier "Upon leaving office clinton left a detailed anti-terrorist plan that was tossed in the trash by bush and comapny [sic]...."
So...are you wrong, or is the Bill Clinton endorsed Richard Clarke wrong?
Posted by: Pompeius | Sep 26, 2006 12:06:42 PM
I wasn't aware that quoting Richard Clarke's own words was defending BushCo. I'm interested in the truth and Clinton and Co. are engaging in revisionist history.
I'm going to say it again: We all did not see this coming. Both sides have made enormous mistakes and are, in my mind, equally to blame, but Clinton had 8 years and 10 opportunities to kill that man and didn't. The right has some responsibility in that because they go all caught up in ensnaring Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal. Clinton holds Clarke up as his savior and Clarke's own words, sometimes, paint a less than rosy picture of Clinton. That's the truth and you guys are so caught up in your partisan hatred of Bush that you're willing to ignore facts and rally around a deeply flawed man who fucked us over not once, but twice. It's pathetic.
As for the the new "terror" bill. To be honest, I haven't really read up on it, but I'll say this: Two minutes of waterboarding revealed the Library tower plot after weeks of conventional interrogation failed to. If the plot had succeeded, thousands may have died here in Los Angeles and none of you would then be defending the administration's upholding of human rights. You'd be howling about their failure to get the plot information out of KSM.
Posted by: Mitch | Sep 26, 2006 12:08:09 PM
Let me clarify....we did see it coming and were in denial.
Posted by: Mitch | Sep 26, 2006 12:09:53 PM
actualy
first
mitch please post a source of your quote
if from clark's book then plase post the page number. i will have to go buy a copy.
i quesdtion the quote. Am trying to research it, haven't exactly found it on my own so have not commented till I have proof that it is acurate
Remember yesterday mitch??? You misquoted Arianan huffington which I totaly busted you on with a cut and past directly from her apperance on CNN
So please do cite a source for your clark statements.
otherwise I can not talk about them
Oh and till you do provide a source, i wish to know your thoughts on the bill before congress at the moment. The one pomp that changes america forvere kills america
lets the terrorists win by killing the heart, soul, and spirit of america
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Sep 26, 2006 12:26:29 PM
Damn
Sorry, I should have hit preview and edit before post on that one
LOL
Typonese is an underated language
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Sep 26, 2006 12:27:52 PM
Some things bare repeating.
OK, so it wasn't an ambush. The man goes on Fox News (its really Fox Views) which is decidedly republican and decides that its his turn to tell the story. Did he win converts? Extremely unlikely on Fox Views...your minds are sadly already made up. Which is all laughable in the face of what has irrefutably happened:
We have a president and administration that concocted a reason to wage a war on foreign territories. Report after report, official reports tell us there was no connection between 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden, or Iraq.
Yesterday, the American toll in Iraq passed the 9/11 death toll.
Yet they persist.
Today, an official report is released that ststes that the war in Iraq exasperates terrorism is issued.
But some continue to blame Bill Clinton, who lied about having sex. While a president who lied about the reasons to go to war, for young men and women to offer their lives, has impunity?
There are shades of gray, but there is black and white. There are facts. There is evidence. Sorry, but this discussion is simply crazy.
Posted by: randy | Sep 26, 2006 12:33:58 PM
Mitch, out of curiosity: do you tell all your "friends" at freerepublic you're a big 'mo, or do you conceal it because you "like to keep your private life private?"
Posted by: nuflux | Sep 26, 2006 12:39:58 PM
"So please do cite a source for your clark statements."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html
Other choice quotes:
"I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration."
Other important detail IMO emerging from this 2002 interview...Bush admin looking at the Clinton non-plan, then increasing the anti-AQ budget FIVE FOLD right after coming into office.
Looks like Condi prooved right, Clinton prooved wrong.
Posted by: Pompeius | Sep 26, 2006 12:44:56 PM
Mitch
SOURCE PLEASE!!!!!!!!!
You were busted yesterday as a misquoter
So a source would be nice
Oh and pomp.....so you support secret prisons, torture, No court review for american citizens. Some of the currently held 14,000 are USA citizens that have not been allowed to see the evidence against them nor have a day in court facing their accusers
That right there my friend is the death of america and the bill before congress states explicitly "american citizens can be detained as enemy combatants....."
Just wait...a year or 2 and You my friend will be arrested in the middle of the night, sent off to a jesus camp, never see a court room, and end up cured by electro shock or death.......Herr Leader bush will hear from God that you are an enemy of america because you suck cock. You ask how could the germans have gone along with hitler......it was one step at a time
Hopefully a dem or 2 with a backbone (yeah right) will filibuster this disaster till after Nov 7th. A law is much harder to derail once it is codified
"They came for the jews and I did not say a thing,they came for the gays and I did not say a thing, they came for the catholics and I did not say a thing, then one night they came for me and there was no one to speak up for me"
REMEMBER that quote pomp from a german concentration camp survivor.......because this torture bill is your death warrent eventualy and the death warrent of all us homos that are enemies of these jesus camp's god
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Sep 26, 2006 12:48:58 PM
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
Posted by: nuflux | Sep 26, 2006 12:54:59 PM
Let me rephrase that
A NON fox source please
LOL
-Australian Television busted Ruport Murdoch (owner of FOX) for falsifying quotes and news in his australian newspapers
- BBC busted Rupert Murdoch for falsifying quotes and news in his newspapers and television news
- New US documentray bsuts Rupert Murdoch the owner of fox for telling his editors to EDIT the news to his biases
Fox is NOT a credible source
I will accept any other source but FOX
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Sep 26, 2006 12:56:09 PM
"Fox is NOT a credible source. I will accept any other source but FOX."
LOL!!!!!
Jimmyboyo, this is a exact, word for word, TRANSCRIPT of an INTERVIEW. It is completely unedited by Fox. Even the "uh"'s are preserved. You're, uh, being silly.
So, I repeat, is Richard Clarke wrong, or are you wrong?
(Moral of the story: Clinton needs to be more careful which authors he decides to promote. My advice: Do like Hugo Chavez, and stick with Chomsky. When doing a crazed lefty rant in front of the cameras, you can never go wrong waving a Chomsky over your head.)
Posted by: Pompeius | Sep 26, 2006 1:26:56 PM
JIMMYBOYO: Thank you for the wonderful Olberman piece. And, I've concluded that you must work for Orkin—the only place that could adequately train one to repeatedly fight intellectual cockroaches like Mitch and Pomp & Little Circumstance. "That's the truth and you guys are so caught up in your partisan hatred of Bush that you're willing to ignore facts and rally around a deeply flawed man who fucked us over not once, but twice. It's pathetic." Mitch, I hope you suck cock better than you suck truth from propaganda. Once again, just to give you more rope to hang yourself some more: let's pretend Bush & Co. knew absolutely nothing about any terrorist threat of any kind in those first 8 months. WHAT THE FUCK HAS HE ACCOMPLISHED IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS? There's no evidence they've killed old Bin. Yes, they caught their old business pal Saddam. Gee, that was really hard. But no credible person claims we're any safer than we were before Bush took office—in fact, just the opposite is agreed. "Partisan" is the kind of hatred that I documented yesterday about the Mellon fortune heir who spent millions creating a Clinton hit squad that was and is used by the Bush Reich. I do agree with you about one thing: Clinton fucked us twice [not in the good way]. But what makes your own attacks on him and defense of Bush partisan, and hypocritical, is ignoring that his failing us is dwarfed by the fact that Bush has fucked us every day he has been in office, generally exploiting homophobia at every opportunity, letting his appointee throw out the gay federal employee job protection Executive Order that CLINTON issued, and repeatedly calling for our civil castration by writing us literally out of the US Constitution! What part of Fascist Fuck don't you understand? Where is your outrage about that? Gone with your soul in exchange for pats on the head from Massa and scraps from his table. Fortunately, for both of you, there is still an implied Constitutional right to be a moral toad.
Posted by: Leland | Sep 26, 2006 1:49:07 PM
Thanks for that Pompeus. Jimmy won't respond. He'll change the subject, which he's done twice this morning.
Posted by: Mitch | Sep 26, 2006 1:49:14 PM
Please also see here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/bush_held_up_plan_to_hit_bin_laden.htm
Condosleaza is the liar.
Posted by: nuflux | Sep 26, 2006 2:42:29 PM
Leland, pardon my ignorance.....but who or what the heck is orkin :-) i doubt anyone would give me a job refuting anyone since I rarely edit my posts for typos and spelling mistakes. A nasty habit. I also have the nasty habit of pissing off people every other day. :-)
Mitch
I am sorry that I am not attached to the computer 24/7
I am attached only 23/7 :-)
I stand by my statement
I can NOT respond to your supposed clarke quote because you will not cite a source (fox does not count). You were busted yetserday as as a misquoter. You did aknowledge that and I gave you a 1/2 smile for aknowledging that you should have done a little more research on what Ariana actualy said.
Pomp
I have 3 sources that all say that FOX is untrustworthy
That Ruport Murdoch the owner of FOX before he ever created FOX was
1) busted by Australian media for falsifying quotes and news
2) BBC That is British Broadcasting if you didn't know busted Ruport Murdoch for falsifying quotes and news in his newspapers and television news outlets
3) Now we have a USA documentary showing that Ruport Murdoch not only falsifies the news and quotes but openly fires editors who do not portray the reality he wishes
So , till you can give me a non FOX source I must again ask you
What is your opinion on the "torture" bill before the congress at the moment. You do understand that it allows for "secret evidence" that is evidence that you as the defendant do not get to see
Basicaly
A US citizen can get arrested, taken to a secret prison which bush finaly admited to, get tortured, and be told you are QUILTY of whatever crime they wish to say you are quilty of and executed without you ever seeing the evidence.
Many of those "damn arabs" 14,000 in bushs torture prisons are US citizens!!! You got that. They are americans protected under the constitution being held indefinetly without being able to see 1 shred of supposed evidence against them
1st it will be the arab americans, then the pro-liberty americans, then they will come for you a gay american because Herr leader heard God tell him sucking cock is a sin and against jesus land (america) and no one will be around to stand up for you
It happened before in Germany not too long ago
"First they came for the jews, then they came for the gays, then they came for the catholics, and when they came for me there was no one left to speak out for me."
A survivor of a german concentration camp said that one......
Anyway; when you provide a non FOX source on your possible clarke quote then I will respond on that. Till then I want to know how sucking cock is going to save you from the jesus land freaks and the death of habeas corpus (the right to a speedy trial, the right to confron accusers, the right to see evidence...all dating back to the magna carta 400 years ago)
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Sep 26, 2006 3:28:36 PM
PS
I am the last person to defend Bill clinton. I think his and hillary's "triangulation" read appeasement of the right is part and parcel of why the right grew. The man didn't have balls enough to say "Yes i slept with that woman. That is between my wife and I, and I dare all my critics to take a lie detector test proving that they have never cheated on their wife."
BUT!!!!!!!!!!!! The right's incesant need to demonize Clinton due to their bush boy being such an F up is just down right disgusting.
Hillary herself is just bush lite / lieberman in a dress by her not standing up and saying that the Iraq war was/is/ and always will be the wrong war.
But again....the need for you guys to constantly paint her and her husband as demons is beyond bold faced hutzpah. It is down right psycopathic.
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Sep 26, 2006 3:43:56 PM
"So , till you can give me a non FOX source I must again ask you.."
Um...I've been resisting pointing this out, because the irony is just SO thermonuclear...but..can...no...longer...resist...
Um...the whole Bill Clinton/Chris Wallace interview...it's a Fox source.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(mushroom cloud)
Posted by: Pompeius | Sep 26, 2006 4:01:46 PM
LOl
pomp and yes FOX has already been busted on selective editing of it
LOL
BOOM!!!!!!
Some full copies of the interview were released (read secreted out of the SS propaganda building) before the interview aired.
Guess what!!!??? It was selectively edited..........and trimed to try to fit it into Murdoch's warped view of reality....though Clinton was so spot on that it was difficult for FOX to totaly tarnish his message/ response
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Sep 26, 2006 4:09:20 PM
Clinton wears people out because you have to go over everything with a razor blade to discern the mystical contexts from which the phrasings arise. He means one thing but wants you to think another. What a headache! Bush, on the other hand, in classic conservative bully mode, will be like "I'm going to do X and there is nothing, pipsqueak, that you can do about it". But he's throwing bones to the religious community since he really doesn't care about the issues they want to see passed, such as the marriage amendment. Rove knows they'll settle for a preacher instead of a doer as president, speaking their platitudes but not working too hard for them. His main, and almost only, conservative achievement so far has been two supreme court justices, neither of whom are particularly evangelical. The marriage amendments that have passed in the states are usually by referendum, and what can we do about democracy like that? Where is the Democratic party in the states to block these amendments on election day? The NJ supremes have yet to rule on marriage but they'll probably go no since NY and Wash. state went no and Poritz is out as chief judge. In NY they have candidates issuing platitudes regarding marriage to gin up cash, but I doubt they'll push too hard once in office.
Posted by: Anon | Sep 26, 2006 4:16:14 PM