It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was Clinton distracted by the sex scandal?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Here is an interesting timeline....

TERROR DATES

1996
June 25 A lorry bomb explodes at US military barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans; Osama bin Laden identified as terrorist financier
1998
June Osama bin Laden placed on FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List
Aug 7 US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania are bombed; Osama bin Laden named as the mastermind of the attacks
Aug 20 US forces launch day of missile strikes on camps in Afghanistan and destroy a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan
Dec 24 In an ABC News interview, bin Laden denies responsibility for the embassy attacks
2000
Oct 12 Attack on the USS Cole by bin Laden sympathisers kills 17



CLINTON

1997
Dec 19 Monica Lewinsky subpoenaed to appear at a deposition hearing
1998
Jan 17 The Drudge Report breaks story about a White House intern’s sexual affair with President Clinton
Jan 26 Clinton declares “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”
Aug 6 Lewinsky testifies before the Starr grand jury
Aug 17 Clinton admits in a televised speech, “I did have a relationship with Ms Lewinsky that was not appropriate”
Dec 11 House Judiciary Committee approve articles of impeachment
Dec 19 Clinton impeached by the House on two counts of perjury and obstruction of justice
1999
Jan 7 Impeachment trial begins in the Senate Feb. 12 Senate acquits Clinton


www.timesonline.co.uk...

It also reminds the dem/libs that clinton was being impeached for lying under oath....not because of a 'humdinger'.

mod edit, spelling/grammar

[edit on 10-9-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   
No way! That was his personal life!

Just because he humiliated himself in the eyes of his wife, his daughter, and the nation by flagrantly violating the most sacred of social norms, thereby jeopardizing his marriage, his family, his reputation, and his presidency, what in God's name would make you think that he might have been distracted?

Perish the thought!

[edit on 2006/9/8 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Clinton is a Prick, just like all the other US Presidents
www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
~~

nope!

the Rhodes Scholar guy
was very adept at 'Compartmentalizing' all the aspects of his lucid intelligence



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Yes ferretman I think a dress with a stain really took away the presidents overview on world events.

This was nearly 10 years ago and I personally don't think it is relevant at all.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I agree, people hate clintont only because he isnt a member of 'their' team.
Clinton was an excellent President, so he had an affair..
How many people on this planet cheat?
IT wouldnt of been such a big scandle, if members of his own team didnt take advantage of the issue, maybe lower his cred and rep so he DOESNT take action..
he wouldnt want to risk even more naysayers, if he attempted to remove a international threat and failed, look at mogadishu. The public opinon made it seem like no matter what adventure he took in the name of national safety. the internal aspects would surely use it against him regardless the outcome.

Clinton, did a hell of a lot more for a peacful middle eastern region,
Military force ISNT always the answer.

I still find it astonishing, that the US elected members can find a way to impeach a man whom cheats on his wife...
Yet cant find a reason to pull GW before the committee.

That sure sounds like a fair system to me.

Who was in office when the Attaks happened? A: GW Bush
How long was Bush in Office before the attacks happened A: 9 months
How long did bush have to remove the threat he was ADVISED for A: 9 months

If george and his war criminals.. i mean cronies..
can launch a massive military strike against 2x foreign countries.. im sure he had the ability to launch various cruise strikes... especially when he learned that they want to use boeings, as missles into buildings..

you'd think some people would see the threat in reading that from a report.

Granted, Clinton could of done the strike too, But to place the blame on him is ludicrous.

Im sure if he had of gotten a report, saying terrrorts determined to strike in the US, he would of launched the strikes, simply because of oklahoma he knew he wouldnt be able to control another impending attack on his watch.


[edit on 8-9-2006 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 8-9-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   
There are a ton of errors in your post Agit...

1.

Clinton, did a hell of a lot more for a peacful middle eastern region

Such as?
An intifada started under his watch...

2.

still find it astonishing, that the US elected members can find a way to impeach a man whom cheats on his wife..

He was impeached for lying under oath. A regular person would have been arrested for doing something like that.

3.

Who was in office when the Attaks happened? A: GW Bush

And if the court voted the other way Al Gore would have been in office when it happened. I'm not sure what your point is


4.

Granted, Clinton could of done the strike too, But to place the blame on him is ludicrous.

Who's blaming Clinton?
Does Clinton share some of the blame? Yes. So does Bush. But I have yet to see one person blame only Clinton.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Just an odd little note:
Clinton is viewed as the best head of the US for a long time by a suprisingly large number of Canadians.
I'm not exactly sure why this is, but I suspect it has mostly to do with the fact that he didn't (or at least wasn't percived to) actively screw us over. As for his sexual scandel, well... he's the prez! Getting a JB in the Oval Office is a hell of a temptation and the fact that he fell into it made him see more human. A lot of us did a
at his comment "but I didn't inhale".
Yeah right, Bill... but right on too.

What I'm saying is that Clinton might have been demonized in the US, but atleast up here he's seen as a positive figure that did a lot to smooth internationally ruffled feathers.

As to whether or not he was distracted... did you mean by the scandle or the actual activities? Yeah... a hummer could be just a little distracting.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
No way! That was his personal life!

Just because he humiliated himself in the eyes of his wife, his daughter, and the nation by flagrantly violating the most sacred of social norms, thereby jeopardizing his marriage, his family, his reputation, and his presidency, what in God's name would make you think that he might have been distracted?

Perish the thought!

[edit on 2006/9/8 by GradyPhilpott]


well, he was also unlawfully asked about his personal life...

anyway, almost every president has had a mistress, even FDR had a mistress

yes, the president in a wheelchair had a mistress...
heck, his WIFE had her own mistress

what's the big deal?



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
The big deal is not that he had a 'mistress'

The big deal was that he lied under oath.........an offense that would put an america citizen in jail.

It is against the law to lie under oath. And the fact that is was the President of the USA lieing under oath.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Clinton was set up. Lewinski was paid off by the people Clinton openly despised having to bow to. It was only about a year before this that Clinton openly stated that all the decisions had been decided by the time the questions got to him - the American President is a figurehead. G. Dubyu is a prime example of this - he's a rag doll in a big dog's mouth. Clinton was a good man - just a bad politician. What would you choose - public humiliation or the possible injury of your family?



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Mod edit to remove an off topic post.

If you feel the need to post jokes, we have a forum dedicated to that topic:
www.belowtopsecret.com...


[edit on 10-9-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
By set up, do you mean that he was allowed within a few hundred yards of a horny young human female, or do you mean that Lewinsky was just so incredibly beautiful and seductive, a femme fatale--"a woman who attracts men by an aura of charm and mystery."

Were these "affairs" set up, as well?

[edit on 2006/9/9 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
There are a ton of errors in your post Agit...
1. An intifada started under his watch...

2. He was impeached for lying under oath. A regular person would have been arrested for doing something like that.

3. And if the court voted the other way Al Gore would have been in office when it happened.

4. Who's blaming Clinton?
Does Clinton share some of the blame? Yes. So does Bush. But I have yet to see one person blame only Clinton.



Gawd dammit thankyou BOY! '' in a slack jawed yokell southern american accent ''
I love it when people use numbers as points, trying to give the impression of domination in a thread.
And when they completely side step the point of a ... point.. and answer with some obvious one liner, attempting to make the opposing debate appear stupid.

I love this site, its getting more and more obvious with all the 'senoir' members posts.

An infitada started under Bill Clinton?
Points for you..
But to be completely honest.. When did the ' supposid ' hijackers enter the US..
Whom was in charge?
Whom was in charge when a report was given stating the THREAT of osama using planes as missles?
WHO WAS IN CHARGE in the immediate minutes after the attack.. when our planes sat on the ground.. when our buildings were still vulnerable...

But you are correct.. because these guys banded together in afhgan, and plotted a terror attack... 10years later.... we should of hit them then. Problem was.. the terrorist threat.. in THAT DAY.. was coming from Yousef... and internal home grown menaces..

Granted, President Bill clinton, lied about sleeping with a women.. while married.
Having his personal life ruined, his family in tatters and his personal cred lost.. seems like a good punishment..
when he's runnign the country in a means that is IMPROVING the average life of every citizen.. when there's such a SHORT time to go... would be a reasonable response from any DECENT MAN.. to maybe forget these bueatcratic BS , and do the common sense thing and let the guy continue running the country?

But your right..
Bush has activley invaded two countries.
totally ruined one country that has been around LGNER that the USA..
by mistake.

along with the whole 911 thing ' yeah that pesky day! ' you'd think by now.. we'd of realised our President isnt exactly up to the challenge of being the leader of the free world.

And If AL Gore had of been on office, I can gaurantee there'd be people still blaming Clinton.

Agian what is the point of this reply? where clearing talking about Clinton and his scandal.. not the conspiracy about GORE
nice attempt at hijacking the thread. But back to my point.

People are trying to put the blame on Clinton here... where'd yu get gore from?
Ive seen a lot of posters on this site blaming clinton. and a 'senoir' member such as yourself probably have to. But being no one in this particular post has.. i liek you attempt at pullign the cotton over peopels eyes.. in this instance.

I agree tho, clinton deserves a slap saying damnit.. you should of ALERTED this government when they took over about the threat.
Whoops.... THEY DID!


So WHY when they got a SECOND WARNING.. about an impending threat they didnt secure the air enough to stop... some men from the caves of afghan.. with primitive box cutters.. hijack those planes.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Clinton was not distracted by Osama Bin Laden. His sexual encounters maintained top priority.


Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10-9-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 05:10 AM
link   
If all else fails blame Clinton. What a desperate act! The ABC special comming up is sure to stirr things, isnt it?
The elite production Co. Disney, is sure to have some fun with this one.


I hope they yank this one out and it doesnt get shown. I remember the Raegan Administration stopping a certain movie from being aired???? Oh yes, i remember it well. Why must opposing sides have to come up with movies now and then to dissinform the public? The problem is, there are so many stupid people in this country that airing a docudrama fantasy with disclaimers that its just a story for entertainment purposes would do absolutely no good. People would take it at face value and run with it.
"I told ya, Billyjoe, that Clinton was evil"


There is but one evil force at work. And we all know who that is.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Look at this as a long-term plan - Clinton becomes President because of his affinity to smoke without inhaling and his weakness for women so it could be used against him for smoke screen when the time to INSTALL little Bush came. Lewinski and Clinton didn't touch each other and his initial claim that he didn't touch her was the truth. He was forced into a false admission to save his family's lives. When Clinton was allowed to be elected it wasn't expected he'd do anything - he was filler until the other Bush could be maneuvered into Governer of Florida's office and ensure G. Dubuya's installment (are ballots still washing up on shore? I think one came out of my tap the other day). When George dubuyh was illegally place in office the American public didn't know which bloody scandal to look at first or last - heads reeling just as they are today. Keep them confused with BS, conspiracy theories and propaganda while the old boys do their work.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Last night the world event of this path to 911 thing.
Makes me very suspicous of ATS to be honest.

As good as people are at investigating.. why is it topics come up here, that try to save face for the bush admin, then we see a exact carbon copy backup on the TV?

I love the way harvey keitels character laughs at how pathetic clinton is, placing any events in the future as blame on his feet.

Im soryr all you ANTI CLINTON people,

If Clinton had the information that an impending attack on NYC was about to happen, im sure of his decision to remove that threat.

Bush sat around with his thumb up his a$$ before, during and after the attacks.

Are people really serious? really on the save friggen wave length.. on the same planet as most to even put the blame on clinton?

Realy? is this the worst LAST ditch effort to try and salvage a pupppet, i mean president from totally messing up the free wrold of the west?

Crikey be jesus..
Im disgusted more and more about peoples inability to REASON on this site.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I agree, people hate clintont only because he isnt a member of 'their' team.
Clinton was an excellent President, so he had an affair..
How many people on this planet cheat?
IT wouldnt of been such a big scandle, if members of his own team didnt take advantage of the issue, maybe lower his cred and rep so he DOESNT take action..


Actually, the big deal is that perjured himself. Mobsters and drug dealers commit perjury, not Presidents. And I think it's safe to admit that most of us here aren't really on a political "team", so to speak.


Clinton, did a hell of a lot more for a peacful middle eastern region,
Military force ISNT always the answer.


But apparently, it IS the only answer against aspirin factories.


I still find it astonishing, that the US elected members can find a way to impeach a man whom cheats on his wife...
Yet cant find a reason to pull GW before the committee.

That sure sounds like a fair system to me.


Again, the issue was not his infidelity, rather his lame "misunderstanding" of s_3xual relations and lies that followed.
As to GW...take a browse through the 9/11 Theories forum and see how many GW supporters you find in there.


Who was in office when the Attaks happened? A: GW Bush
How long was Bush in Office before the attacks happened A: 9 months
How long did bush have to remove the threat he was ADVISED for A: 9 months


Administrations have been historically lax in dealing with this kind of thing. The blame falls to all corrupt administrations, present and past.


If george and his war criminals.. i mean cronies..
can launch a massive military strike against 2x foreign countries.. im sure he had the ability to launch various cruise strikes... especially when he learned that they want to use boeings, as missles into buildings..
you'd think some people would see the threat in reading that from a report.


You need to gain some insight on what an intelligence report looks like. They don't say "Terrorists will hijack 4 planes on 9/11 and fly them into the world trade center", just like Clinton's intel didn't report "A man will drive a bomb into the WTC" (1993 bombing).


Granted, Clinton could of done the strike too, But to place the blame on him is ludicrous.


To excuse him from all blame is equally ludicrous.


Im sure if he had of gotten a report, saying terrrorts determined to strike in the US, he would of launched the strikes, simply because of oklahoma he knew he wouldnt be able to control another impending attack on his watch.


On this we agree; for all his faults, Clinton's politics were generally the polar opposite of Bush, and while I'm not absolutely certain that Bush pre-planned the attacks, I do believe he at least had some warning and let it fly, so to speak, to further an agenda. However, the part of your post that I've boldened is exactly what most intel reports look like, and again is something you should take into consideration the next time you refer to them. As a lowly Private in my early Army days, I put many an old document through the shredder as busy work assigned by NCOs, and I've seen a pretty good amount of (outdated or copied) stuff like that.

You might be interested in Condoleezza Rice's statement to the 9/11 Commission, where it is noted that all of Clinton's intel staff had been retained during the beginning of the Bush administration. So basically, Clinton's intel guys, the guys that had all that sort of info, were still holding onto it and working for Bush at this time.

Overall, what Grady said is pretty fitting; Clinton had a lot on his plate. Because I am biased, I tend to believe Bush played a signifant role in the attacks, but Clinton's idiocy, and his multiple chances to erase UBL and/or aQ, cannot be dismissed either, especially not because he was s_3xually confused.


[edit on 10-9-2006 by Astygia]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Sorry about my one-liner previous (I can't seem to edit it).

Happened to catch a little of ABCs 9.11 docudrama, and the Clinton scandal (Lewinski one, anyway) popped up around the embassy bombings, I believe.

The whole Jennifer Flowers, to "I didn't inhale", to Whitewater, to Lewinski, to misappropriation, to election rigging, to "I really didn't do anything inappropriate" fails him as a Presidential reference in good standing in my opinion.

The sex scandal was one of many, he was too darned busy making excuses to realize what was taking place. Resources were not dedicated to "ensuring safety", but rather I did she an upshoot in realestate holdings.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join