For those of you who didn't follow the news during Clinton

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 25, 2004, 2:56 pm

Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040 ... -3401r.htm

Something to keep in mind as we discuss Bush.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » June 25, 2004, 3:05 pm

Hrm.. I saw an interview last night with Clinton and Katie Couric where she asked him directly if he thought there were any ties and he said no.

Interesting read.

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » June 25, 2004, 3:08 pm

Clinton lied to save his party. No big news there.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 25, 2004, 3:30 pm

Cant wait to see the spin on this one.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 25, 2004, 3:44 pm

Hey in an additional note, the trampy fat slut he was banging in the Oval Office says he lied about their affair in his book

http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news ... nton_x.htm

Spang · Post by **Spang** » June 25, 2004, 3:44 pm

I did not have sexual relations with that woman!

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 25, 2004, 3:47 pm

Oo I really am curious to see the spin also.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 25, 2004, 3:53 pm

You spin me right round,
baby Right round like a liberal,
baby Right Round round round

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » June 25, 2004, 4:21 pm

haha you bitter fucks are still bitching about Clinton?

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 25, 2004, 4:23 pm

Lets put it like this.

Clinton got his dick sucked while in office.
Bush sucked dick to get into office.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 25, 2004, 4:28 pm

I am a little bitter yes. I would have liked to get hummers in the oval office as well.

What we need is a bachelor president that can go nuts in the White House without concern over improprieties. People would love him as they loved Clinton fucking around all of the time although in this case, as long as he didn't fuck the hired help, he'd have no one to answer to for it.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 25, 2004, 4:29 pm

Jice Virago wrote:haha you bitter fucks are still bitching about Clinton?

Nah I do not care abotu Clinton anymore other than having pen ready to be anti-Hillary.

But I am curious that he noted tie between Iraq and Osama.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » June 25, 2004, 4:36 pm

I am sure at the end of Gulf war I, with the utter chaos of the area, that such a connection seemed more likely (or at least was harder to discount), but consider that in the decade since that time that Iraq has been a lot more stable and we have had more time to garner intelligence. Also, Clinton himself stated that the evidence was not enough to merrit an invasion of Iraq (but he did say that such an invasion was probably nessecary at some point in the future, just not now).

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » June 25, 2004, 4:47 pm

Jice Virago wrote:I am sure at the end of Gulf war I, with the utter chaos of the area, that such a connection seemed more likely (or at least was harder to discount), but consider that in the decade since that time that Iraq has been a lot more stable and we have had more time to garner intelligence.

Most of the Al Queda information didn't come out until the first WTC bombing attempt. After that is when people went ape shit over gathering intel on the group. As I recall, much of the speculation at the time was that Saddam contacted the terrorists and sent them to the US, but that was shot down rather quickly.

Also, Clinton himself stated that the evidence was not enough to merrit an invasion of Iraq (but he did say that such an invasion was probably nessecary at some point in the future, just not now).

That's also what he saw. He said that for him, the justification would come at the point where Hans Blix would say that Iraq is being completely uncooperative and/or if there was reason to believe that Iraq had WMDs and was purposly hiding them or in the process of manufacturing them. He mentioned that he believed that Iraq has WMDs and that Saddam was/is hiding them at the moment, but he wouldn't have invaded until the weapons inspectors had conclusive evidence or were tired of trying to fight through the red tape.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 25, 2004, 5:30 pm

The Washington Times is a "newspaper" owned by Rev. Sum Young Moon (yes the moonies guy) to operate as a mouthpiece of conservative propaganda.

yes the same Sum Young Moon who openly brags about how much influence he has in hte GOP

yes the same Sum Young Moon who recently declared himself the Messiah in one of the Senate Annex buildings at a corronation ceremony (attended by 10 members of Congress, some R some D). To have a meeting in that room, a sitting senator has to sign up for it. The Senate refuses to disclose who signed for the room.

The same Sum Young Moon who in that speech declared that he had posthumously redeemed Stalin and Hitler.

I'm not making any of this up.

http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog/

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/09/24/moon/

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » June 25, 2004, 5:38 pm

A conservative owned paper run by a guy who is the next incarnation of Jesus is "fair and balanced", you silly liberal!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 25, 2004, 5:48 pm

the Washington Times has had a 2 page advertisement paid for by Moon on its pages where he has listed 36 past (all dead) presidents of the US endorsing the holiness of Moon. Washington specifically called Moon the Messiah.

so i don't see how anybody can doubt words printed on those pages...

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 25, 2004, 5:54 pm

Yeah the times is a rag, but they are not making up the times Clinton said that, geez.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 25, 2004, 5:55 pm

07:10 Nov 25, 1996 EST

BUENOS AIRES
(Reuters) -

The South Korean evangelist Sun Myung Moon launched a new Spanish-language newspaper for the whole of Latin America this weekend, with the backing of guest George Bush who praised Moon's respect for editorial independence. The former U.S. president, guest speaker at a banquet Saturday to launch Moon's new publication ``Tiempos del Politics Mundo'' (Times of the World), was full of praise for the controversial evangelist's best-known newspaper, the Washington Times, and referred to Moon as ``the man with the vision.'' Bush then travelled with Moon to neighboring Uruguay Sunday to help him inaugurate a seminary in the capital Montevideo to train 4,200 young Japanese women to spread the word of his Church of Unification across Latin America.

Moon already owns a major newspaper, bank and hotel in Uruguay and is buying up land in the Argentine province of Corrientes, where he plans to construct what his followers call ``ideal cities''.

``I want to salute Reverend Moon who is the founder of the Washington Times and of the new paper here,'' said Bush, who was reported by the Washington Post to have been paid $100,000 for his Buenos Aires appearance.

``A lot of my friends in South America don't know about the Washington Times but it is an independent voice,'' said Bush. ''The editors of the Washington Times tell me that never once has the man with the vision interfered with the running of the paper, a paper that in my view brings sanity to Washington DC.''

``I am convinced that Tiempos

George Bush, Sr. being paid $100,000 by Moon to endorse his newspaper in Buenos Aires. LOL. I actually respected Bush, Sr. until i read this. I'd have more respect for him taking $5 to suck dick and buy crack with it.

anyways, to the original article, it is completely consistent with the "relationship" discussed by the 9/11 Commission, and hardly on par with what GW Bush characterized about Saddam and Al Qaeda.

"[Saddam] wants to use Al Qaeda as a forward army"

What the Times article says is that UBL had operations in Sudan and that persons in the Sudanese chemical plant had wanted to get operational help from Iraq.

The 9/11 Commission said that Sudan tried to get UBL to establish ties with Iraq (to help their relations with Iraq) at this same time.

THe 9/11 Commission then said, no substantial relationship ever developed from these communications.

as for the camps in Afghanistan, i guess i have to read the article again, cause i don't really see anything about Iraq.

So yes MAYBE there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the mid 90s on a chemical weapons plant in the Sudan that we destroyed. but again, there is no evidence of continued sustained relationship between AQ and Saddam, more relavently in the years from 2000-2003.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 25, 2004, 6:12 pm

Impeachment:
The process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it is only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and is thus only the first step towards removal. Bill Clinton was impeached; he was not removed from office.

Im not bitter at all he got his black mark for what he did.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 25, 2004, 6:18 pm

How does Moon being a kook nullify Clinton's statements as president?

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » June 25, 2004, 6:26 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:How does Moon being a kook nullify Clinton's statements as president?

Don't take a stupid pill here, Adex. I assume that you were thinking of the Washington Post, and as a result felt you were referencing a credible news source. As it happens, I seem to recall Clinton making references like this at the time, so I am willing to accept this as being vaguely factual despite the source.

Clinton wasn't the shining star for presidential models, so why does it matter if he said some of the same things that the fuckface currently in the Oval Office is using as "reasons" for his private little war?

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » June 25, 2004, 6:26 pm

Is this the same Sun Myung Moon that was referenced in Seinfeld?

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 25, 2004, 6:34 pm

How many prominent Sun Myung Moon's do you think there are?

My money is on yes, it was! And Adex, what they're saying is no matter how true quotes may or may not be, stop reading the Washington Times, for your own sake

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » June 25, 2004, 6:35 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:How many prominent Sun Myung Moon's do you think there are? My money is on yes, it was! And Adex, what they're saying is no matter how true quotes may or may not be, stop reading the Washington Times, for your own sake

10 points to Dregor.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » June 25, 2004, 6:36 pm

Homercles wrote:Is this the same Sun Myung Moon that was referenced in Seinfeld?

It is...

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 25, 2004, 6:38 pm

I guess I'm troubled because you're not addressing the meat of the article. Rather you're off running around with the moonies, as if that had some bearing on Clinton's statements.

Did the article misquote Clinton? Did the article make a factual error?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » June 25, 2004, 6:38 pm

If Fox News reported that 2 + 2 = 4, the liberals here would dispute it.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 25, 2004, 7:16 pm

because clearly clinton speculating a link between al-queda and the b'aath party 10 years ago completely absolves bush from invading a sovereign nation based on lies, false accusations and deliberately misleading intelligence. you're perfectly correct adex, everything really is clinton's fault!!1

war profiteering for justice!

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » June 25, 2004, 7:17 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:I guess I'm troubled because you're not addressing the meat of the article. Rather you're off running around with the moonies, as if that had some bearing on Clinton's statements.

Did the article misquote Clinton? Did the article make a factual error?

I have no idea if this article misquoted Clinton. What is your point? Clinton had some dubious notions of things in his time and wasn't anything special as a president. Are Clinton's comments meant to be used as a justification for Bush's recent comments?

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » June 25, 2004, 7:22 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:If Fox News reported that 2 + 2 = 4, the liberals here would dispute it.

Sometimes, many of the people on this board act like four year olds in their political discussions and your comment falls into this category.

Out of habit, I ignore almost everything not reported by BBC World News as being 60-80% spin and crap. If something relevent and important is happening here in the States, it will most likely be on BBC World News. Everything else is just the same squabbling that goes on here on these boards.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » June 25, 2004, 8:36 pm

Code: Select all

For those of you who didn't follow the news during Clinton

I followed the news when Clinton was president, it just so happened that there was this little case of sexual indecency that overshadowed EVERYTHING the guy did. You can thank Ken Starr, aka the anti-christ.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 25, 2004, 9:03 pm

kyoukan wrote:because clearly clinton speculating a link between al-queda and the b'aath party 10 years ago completely absolves bush from invading a sovereign nation based on lies, false accusations and deliberately misleading intelligence. you're perfectly correct adex, everything really is clinton's fault!!1

war profiteering for justice!

No, numbskull. The conclusion to be drawn, is, by your thinking Clinton must be also lying.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 25, 2004, 9:53 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:How does Moon being a kook nullify Clinton's statements as president?

the article doesn't quote BIll Clinton at all.

It quotes his Sec. of Defense BIll Cohen. Furthermore I believe it quotes his testimony to the 9/11 commission as well. So it is not contrary to their conclusions, it was part of what they drew their conclusions from.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 27, 2004, 9:07 am

kyoukan wrote:because clearly clinton speculating a link between al-queda and the b'aath party 10 years ago completely absolves bush from invading a sovereign nation based on lies, false accusations and deliberately misleading intelligence. you're perfectly correct adex, everything really is clinton's fault!!1

war profiteering for justice!

Not my point at all Kyo.

If Bush drummed up the whole connection thing just to start a war with no evidence. Wouldn't the claims be new? But the claims aren't new. Another administration with different political motives was saying the same thing.

Take a bit of what I say, and then go running of on some crazy tangent, then come back and ask me if that is what I mean? 99 out 100 you're going to be off target.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » June 27, 2004, 11:51 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:
kyoukan wrote:because clearly clinton speculating a link between al-queda and the b'aath party 10 years ago completely absolves bush from invading a sovereign nation based on lies, false accusations and deliberately misleading intelligence. you're perfectly correct adex, everything really is clinton's fault!!1

war profiteering for justice!
Not my point at all Kyo.

If Bush drummed up the whole connection thing just to start a war with no evidence. Wouldn't the claims be new? But the claims aren't new. Another administration with different political motives was saying the same thing.

Take a bit of what I say, and then go running of on some crazy tangent, then come back and ask me if that is what I mean? 99 out 100 you're going to be off target.

No, the statement in bold above does not logically follow. The fact that both George Bush ("senior") and Clinton had their own issues with Iraq is not adequate justification for a war. The two presidents before GWB had serious concerns about Iraq; the first, GWB's own father, even went to war with Iraq, but neither president invaded the country and forcibly ousted Hussein. Neither of those presidents would have dreamed of doing so on the crumbs of information that GWB set off to war with.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 27, 2004, 12:15 pm

What Clinton may or may not have said 10 years ago has little to no fucking bearing what so ever on the current state of affairs.

This reminds me of nothing so much as teenage kids caught in a lie making up more and more lies as they go along. "Ok ok, that's not what really happened it was like this.. oh, you know that's bullshit too, ok ok, it was like this see... oh.. hrmm, give me a minute.."

Perhaps if you go back far enough you can blame this shit on the crusades.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » June 27, 2004, 12:47 pm

10 years ago - 1994, wow that's when Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with Bin Laden.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » June 27, 2004, 1:42 pm

Thess wrote:10 years ago - 1994, wow that's when Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with Bin Laden.

FINALLY someone got it. Yes when Clinton was in the white house was the exact same time they were meeting, hence when Clinton was Pres, there WAS a connection, a short lived one. I remember when Bubba shot those cruise missles at UBL and his factories in Sudan and Afganistan, the Right and the Left both had a hissy fit. Before anyone says he hit an asprin factory(which is still unclear exactly what the place was), he doesn't do the scouting, he doesn't do the covert work, his informants (CIA ops) said these were factories, he took em out. In hindsight should he have done more, sure he should have, but remember the uproar from those cruise missles and tell me his hands weren't tied to some extent.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » June 27, 2004, 3:45 pm

Pherr the Dorf wrote:In hindsight should he have done more, sure he should have, but remember the uproar from those cruise missles and tell me his hands weren't tied to some extent.

Yes, I remember clearly in 1998 when he launched the missles, the republicans screaming that he was trying to take the focus off of Monica.

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » June 27, 2004, 4:51 pm

Sadly we will never know if he did that to take attention away from the Monica thing or not. At the time it was highly suspicious and is a direct page of the political doctrine Realpolitik (or however you spell that), which is when public opinion about you is down start a small war that you can easily win to garner support through nationalism. Most presidents have used this tactic going back to Teddy Roosevelt.

With that said I actually enjoy the partisian politicians switch sides on the same issue. This applies both to republicans and democrats who have at one time said that WMD were in Iraq and at one time have said we should take Saddam out and at one time had no problem saying that Al Quieda and Iraq were link in some fashion.

Jesus Christ guys....It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figuer out that the politicians could care less about what thier constiuants think. They will tell you ANYTHING so you will keep them in power. Clinton was liked cause people actually thought he really cared.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » June 27, 2004, 4:53 pm

Why would Clinton need to start a small war when he wasn't going to be up for re-election?

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » June 27, 2004, 4:57 pm

The whole Monica thing explains it all.

Bill Clinton is a Party man. In more ways than one!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 27, 2004, 5:04 pm

Clinton never really struck me as a loyalist to the democratic party. I think you're wrong. However he was image-conscious.

To claim that he launched missiles into a city to take the attention off his infidelity is ludicrous, though.

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » June 27, 2004, 5:09 pm

We will never know the truth about it.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 27, 2004, 5:16 pm

Arilain wrote:We will never know the truth about it.

I think some people (you) don't care to know the truth about it anyways.

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » June 27, 2004, 5:19 pm

You are right Dregor I really don't care. I don't know, don't care, and never have about him firing my tax dollars into a sand pit. Other people on the other hand do care about it.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » June 27, 2004, 5:22 pm

It still cracks me up that conservatives are still pissed about Clinton enough to wage that old war again. Its like those civil war re-enactments in the south where the south wins, haha.

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » June 27, 2004, 5:27 pm

The South will rise again Dammit!.....well...maybe next year....

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 27, 2004, 5:32 pm

what the hell do you mean we'll never know the truth about it? I just told you the truth about it.