T Nation

Here Are Clinton's Lies

Just a few of them.

"Clinton shouted so many lies during his televised meltdown, only the World Wide Web can capture them all. These are just a few.

Clinton yelled at Wallace: “What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.”

This is so crazy it’s worthy of an Air America caller. Clinton has consistently misrepresented the presidential directive about political assassinations. Clinton did not order bin Laden assassinated. He did not even lift the ban on intelligence agencies attempting to assassinate bin Laden.

What he did was lift the ban on political assassinations ? provided that assassinating bin Laden was not the purpose of the mission. So if U.S. forces were engaged in an operation to capture bin Laden, but accidentally killed him, they would not be court-martialed.

Clinton said, “All the right-wingers who now say I didn’t do enough said I did too much ? same people.” As proof, he cites his humiliating withdrawal from Somalia, claiming, “They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in ‘Black Hawk down,’ and I refused to do it.”

He added, as if it mattered, “There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with ‘Black Hawk down.’”

In fact, what Republicans objected to was Clinton’s transforming a U.N. mission in Somalia to prevent mass starvation into a much grander “nation-building” exercise ? something the Democrats now hysterically support in Darfur and oppose in Iraq.

Democrats long to see American mothers weeping for their sons lost in a foreign war, but only if the mission serves absolutely no national security objectives of the United States. If we are building a democracy in a country while also making America safer ? such as in Iraq ? Democrats oppose it with every fiber of their being.

When Clinton’s “nation-building” in Somalia led to the brutal killing of 18 Americans, some of whose corpses were then dragged through the streets, Clinton did what the Democrats are currently demanding we do in Iraq: He cut and ran.

Republicans didn’t like that either, and it had nothing to do with whether it was al-Qaida we were running from. It could have been Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, al-Dawa or the Viet Cong. We ran, and the terrorists noticed.

Osama bin Laden told “ABC News” in 1998 that America’s humiliating retreat from Somalia emboldened his jihadists: “The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat.”

If this is the message that Clinton is hoping to telegraph to the American people, I hope the voters are listening."

— Ann Coulter

Go get 'em, Annie!! Rip 'em a new one!

So, Ann Coulter has deep rooted problems because Daddy did not care enough…

Where`s the problem?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
In fact, what Republicans objected to was Clinton’s transforming a U.N. mission in Somalia to prevent mass starvation into a much grander “nation-building” exercise ? something the Democrats now hysterically support in Darfur and oppose in Iraq.
[/quote]

If Republicans are all about “spreading democracy”, why would they be against building up parts of Africa?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
In fact, what Republicans objected to was Clinton’s transforming a U.N. mission in Somalia to prevent mass starvation into a much grander “nation-building” exercise ? something the Democrats now hysterically support in Darfur and oppose in Iraq.

If Republicans are all about “spreading democracy”, why would they be against building up parts of Africa?[/quote]

Clinton went off-mission. Dems bitch about GWB doing that, but praised Clinton for doing exactly the same thing. Get it?

Let’s be realistic, too, Doc. Some parts of the world are just far too primitive to develop and install a democracy. You basically have a lawless region w/o infrastructure. I read recently that the literacy rate in Rwanda is 5%. Maybe in a thousand years or so…

Afghanistan is pretty similar, though the literacy rate is probably higher. I did read that only 8% of Afghanistan has electricity.

We’re trying to civilize a world that is probably simply not ready for that. Amazing though how all these regions have had thousands of years to develop and are simply wastelands. We’ve achieved greatness in a very short span. Wonder what the difference is…capitalism maybe?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
In fact, what Republicans objected to was Clinton’s transforming a U.N. mission in Somalia to prevent mass starvation into a much grander “nation-building” exercise ? something the Democrats now hysterically support in Darfur and oppose in Iraq.

If Republicans are all about “spreading democracy”, why would they be against building up parts of Africa?

Clinton went off-mission. Dems bitch about GWB doing that, but praised Clinton for doing exactly the same thing. Get it?

[/quote]

No, I don’t get it. Republicans want to claim they are ALL about spreading democracy…however, they originally cried out AGAINST just that when it was initiated by the former president. Now, that Democrats are saying, “You all didn’t care before so why care now”, you want to claim that Democrats are STILL at fault because they are calling your bluff for never being for spreading democracy until Iraq.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. That is some major hypocrisy and you seem to jump right in line behind it simply because some blonde raving idiot made a statement.

If you weren’t for “spreading democracy” in Africa, why is it suddenly what the republican party is about? We are waist deep in shit in Iraq and it isn’t coming up all roses…yet you are going to claim that some places can’t be rebuilt? How does this make sense to you? We didn’t even get to TRY in Africa and you seem to be ok with us being stuck in Iraq for eternity. Why does this make sense to you?

Why does it make sense to ANYONE?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

No, I don’t get it. Republicans want to claim they are ALL about spreading democracy…however, they originally cried out AGAINST just that when it was initiated by the former president. Now, that Democrats are saying, “You all didn’t care before so why care now”, you want to claim that Democrats are STILL at fault because they are calling your bluff for never being for spreading democracy until Iraq.
[/quote]

Our mission is not to spread democracy. It is the GWOT. Kill the terrorists. Overthrow regimes symapthetic and supportive of the murdering cowards. Once we do that - we give the people of that nation a democratic alternative to Islamic fascism.

Africa holds no use for us. The middle east does. You do what you have to do to protect your interests. Throwing Africa into it as a side show reason to support the wrong idea of why we are over there is ignorant. They have been a backwards, stupid people for thousands of years. Why in the hell would we go there unless it was part and parcel to the GWOT?

What kind of idiot takes Ann Coulter as a fountain of truth?

Oh, never mind.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Just a few of them.

"Clinton shouted so many lies during his televised meltdown, only the World Wide Web can capture them all. These are just a few.

Clinton yelled at Wallace: “What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.”

This is so crazy it’s worthy of an Air America caller. Clinton has consistently misrepresented the presidential directive about political assassinations. Clinton did not order bin Laden assassinated. He did not even lift the ban on intelligence agencies attempting to assassinate bin Laden.

What he did was lift the ban on political assassinations ? provided that assassinating bin Laden was not the purpose of the mission. So if U.S. forces were engaged in an operation to capture bin Laden, but accidentally killed him, they would not be court-martialed.

Clinton said, “All the right-wingers who now say I didn’t do enough said I did too much ? same people.” As proof, he cites his humiliating withdrawal from Somalia, claiming, “They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in ‘Black Hawk down,’ and I refused to do it.”

He added, as if it mattered, “There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with ‘Black Hawk down.’”

In fact, what Republicans objected to was Clinton’s transforming a U.N. mission in Somalia to prevent mass starvation into a much grander “nation-building” exercise ? something the Democrats now hysterically support in Darfur and oppose in Iraq.

Democrats long to see American mothers weeping for their sons lost in a foreign war, but only if the mission serves absolutely no national security objectives of the United States. If we are building a democracy in a country while also making America safer ? such as in Iraq ? Democrats oppose it with every fiber of their being.

When Clinton’s “nation-building” in Somalia led to the brutal killing of 18 Americans, some of whose corpses were then dragged through the streets, Clinton did what the Democrats are currently demanding we do in Iraq: He cut and ran.

Republicans didn’t like that either, and it had nothing to do with whether it was al-Qaida we were running from. It could have been Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, al-Dawa or the Viet Cong. We ran, and the terrorists noticed.

Osama bin Laden told “ABC News” in 1998 that America’s humiliating retreat from Somalia emboldened his jihadists: “The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat.”

If this is the message that Clinton is hoping to telegraph to the American people, I hope the voters are listening."

— Ann Coulter

Go get 'em, Annie!! Rip 'em a new one!
[/quote]

Debunked already…He had confirmed orders to kill bin Laden (obviously)

And as she points out herself (hilariously) conservatives were peeing in their pants to get out.

Odd the she fails to mention in order to not pull another “Reagan” (pulling out of a situation (lebanon) at the first sign of trouble) that Clinton had to beg a cowardly conservative congress for 6 more months while even adding additional troops.

What some of you cowards said then:

Sen.Hutchinson
Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option.

Sen.Dole
I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with–I do not know how many Members were there–45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close

Helms
But now we find ourselves involved there in a brutal war, in an urban environment, with the hands of our young soldiers tied behind their backs, under the command of a cumbersome U.N. bureaucracy, and fighting Somalia because we tried to extend helping hands to the starving people of that far-off land.

Mr. President, the United States has no constitutional authority, as I see it, to sacrifice U.S. soldiers to Boutros-Ghali’s vision of multilateral peacemaking. Again, I share the view of Senator Byrd that the time to get out is now.

What Clinton said then:
And make no mistake about it, if we were to leave Somalia tomorrow, other nations would leave, too. Chaos would resume, the relief effort would stop and starvation soon would return. That knowledge has led us to continue our mission. . . .

If we leave them now, those embers will reignite into flames and people will die again. If we stay a short while longer and do the right things, we’ve got a reasonable chance of cooling off the embers and getting other firefighters to take our place. . .

So, now, we face a choice. Do we leave when the job gets tough or when the job is well done? Do we invite the return of mass suffering or do we leave in a way that gives the Somalis a decent chance to survive? Recently, Gen. Colin Powell said this about our choices in Somalia: “Because things get difficult, you don’t cut and run. You work the problem and try to find a correct solution.” . . .

So let us finish the work we set out to do. Let us demonstrate to the world, as generations of Americans have done before us, that when Americans take on a challenge, they do the job right.

Headhunter,
Why, oh why, do you keep posting this know liar’s tripe?

It would be so easy of you to simply fact-check this stuff yourself wouldn’t it?

At some point the public record is gonna force you to admit to yourself that your party is a party of cowards and incompetents.

We know you’re deathly afraid of men in caves, but why keep attacking those who aren’t?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

If Republicans are all about “spreading democracy”, why would they be against building up parts of Africa?

[/quote]

The only want to spread democracy when the feel it is in our national interests. I thought that was clear.

Frankly Africa right now is not as critical to our national interests as other parts of the world.

That does not stop the US from donating more money to Africa than anyone else or Bush and the Republican congress from sending over more money than any other American administration ever.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Our mission is not to spread democracy. It is the GWOT.

[/quote]

Gee. from http://www.fox28.com/News/index.php?ID=4529
:[quote]
As part of his administration’s efforts to spread democracy,[/quote]

Wait. What was that?

Oh, that’s what I thought that read…

[quote]
Bush will meet with other leaders who are moving their nations toward that end. He is meeting Monday with leaders from Malaysia, a democracy with a moderate Islamic government; El Salvador and Honduras, two Central American nations that have moved from military dictatorships to democracies; and the emerging African democracy of Tanzania, where the U.S. embassy was bombed in 1998.[/quote]

I thought that was not our goal?

Oh, wait…IT IS.

Just not in Africa.

Got it…cool.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Bush will meet with other leaders who are moving their nations toward that end. He is meeting Monday with leaders from Malaysia, a democracy with a moderate Islamic government; El Salvador and Honduras, two Central American nations that have moved from military dictatorships to democracies; [/quote]and the emerging African democracy of Tanzania, where the U.S. embassy was bombed in 1998.[quote]

I thought that was not our goal?

Oh, wait…IT IS.

Just not in Africa.

Got it…cool.[/quote]

I thought our goal of spreading democracy didn’t include Africa?

…and the emerging African democracy of Tanzania, where the U.S. embassy was bombed in 1998…

Oh wait…IT DOES.

It does include Africa.

Got it…cool.

[quote]vroom wrote:
What kind of idiot takes Ann Coulter as a fountain of truth?

Oh, never mind.[/quote]

Acaully, I had a drink with Anne the other night. We talked and she’s acaully really smart, She knows it’s all bull-shit. She is playing their game, to an extent to get enough recognition and power. I can’t wait to see her unfold the truth later, and help the cause even more.

Nobody gives a fuck about Africa. GWB, Clinton, and any other politician can talk all they want about spreading freedom and democracy, its the biggest load of crap.

There are easily half a dozen dictators in Africa that make Saddam look like Martha Stewart, most of them were in power longer too. But there is no bloody Operation Freedom to go take them out. Oh, wait, is the fact that most of Africa doesn’t sit on giant oil fields part of the equation…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
In fact, what Republicans objected to was Clinton’s transforming a U.N. mission in Somalia to prevent mass starvation into a much grander “nation-building” exercise ? something the Democrats now hysterically support in Darfur and oppose in Iraq.

If Republicans are all about “spreading democracy”, why would they be against building up parts of Africa?

Clinton went off-mission. Dems bitch about GWB doing that, but praised Clinton for doing exactly the same thing. Get it?

Let’s be realistic, too, Doc. Some parts of the world are just far too primitive to develop and install a democracy. You basically have a lawless region w/o infrastructure. I read recently that the literacy rate in Rwanda is 5%. Maybe in a thousand years or so…

Afghanistan is pretty similar, though the literacy rate is probably higher. I did read that only 8% of Afghanistan has electricity.

We’re trying to civilize a world that is probably simply not ready for that. Amazing though how all these regions have had thousands of years to develop and are simply wastelands. We’ve achieved greatness in a very short span. Wonder what the difference is…capitalism maybe?

[/quote]

Read history a little more and you’ll know why Africa is the way it is. Western countries have ALOT to do with it.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:

No, I don’t get it. Republicans want to claim they are ALL about spreading democracy…however, they originally cried out AGAINST just that when it was initiated by the former president. Now, that Democrats are saying, “You all didn’t care before so why care now”, you want to claim that Democrats are STILL at fault because they are calling your bluff for never being for spreading democracy until Iraq.

Our mission is not to spread democracy. It is the GWOT. Kill the terrorists. Overthrow regimes symapthetic and supportive of the murdering cowards. Once we do that - we give the people of that nation a democratic alternative to Islamic fascism.

Africa holds no use for us. The middle east does. You do what you have to do to protect your interests. Throwing Africa into it as a side show reason to support the wrong idea of why we are over there is ignorant. They have been a backwards, stupid people for thousands of years. Why in the hell would we go there unless it was part and parcel to the GWOT?

[/quote]

First off, ur backwards stupid people comment is completing uncalled for. Second of all, Iraq should never have been part and parcel to the GWOT and Bush sent troops there. If the GWOT is so damn important, why are we letting the Taliban regain a foothold in Afghanistan? You remember the Taliban right??

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Bush will meet with other leaders who are moving their nations toward that end. He is meeting Monday with leaders from Malaysia, a democracy with a moderate Islamic government; El Salvador and Honduras, two Central American nations that have moved from military dictatorships to democracies; and the emerging African democracy of Tanzania, where the U.S. embassy was bombed in 1998.

I thought that was not our goal?

Oh, wait…IT IS.

Just not in Africa.

Got it…cool.

I thought our goal of spreading democracy didn’t include Africa?

…and the emerging African democracy of Tanzania, where the U.S. embassy was bombed in 1998…

Oh wait…IT DOES.

It does include Africa.

Got it…cool.[/quote]

So a meeting is better than the military help that Clinton was attempting to provide?

How do you explain that one?

[quote]Ren wrote:

First off, ur backwards stupid people comment is completing uncalled for.[/quote]

I agree completely. I just get tired of being one of the few who calls people on this constantly. Anyone who believes that western culture isn’t a large reason why Africa is in the shape it is today is a fucking moron.

[quote]Ren wrote:

First off, ur backwards stupid people comment is completing uncalled for. [/quote]

Welcome to redneckjack’s world.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

So a meeting is better than the military help that Clinton was attempting to provide?

How do you explain that one?
[/quote]

Who said that a meeting was better than Clinton’s military assistance?

You said Africa was not part of the Bush’s puch for democracy across the globe. And yet, you don’t even read the artciles you post to support what you wrote - Africa was clearly part of that push, per the article you cited.

I know it is your signature, but you can’t just keep changing the subject every time you get refuted. I never took a position on whether or not Clinton’s approach was better than Bush’s. And whatever your opinion of Clinton’s approach versus Bush’s approach, it is irrelevant to the claim that you made - that mean old Bush completely ignores Africa in his push for democracy.

Point is: stop making up claims that have no basis in reality.

[quote]Ren wrote:

First off, ur backwards stupid people comment is completing uncalled for.[/quote]

So wait - when it comes to the American electorate, we can all throw them under the bus for being stupid, idiotic morons…

…but when someone says it about the people of a Third World country, it is considered bad form, insulting, and improper?