Hillary Afraid of What She Might Find in Oval Office

Online Dictionary

lie1 /laɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
–noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

As GWB had the same information that caused Clinton to vote in FAVOR of his actions, the word LIE is in and of itself a falsehood when used in that context.

Should we be using a lie to discuss someone telling a lie?
As we know he had only that information available when making his speech, it is a LIE to accuse him of telling a lie anymore than Clinton, Kerry and everyone else that voted yes.

Prior to pronouncing someone a liar, perhaps having all the facts and not just those that conveniently fit your opinion, would allow better credibility for your postulations.

Semper

I'm in my mid-50s now. I still believe in America and what it stands for. Maybe I am naive because I still believe that whoever is in the White House of whichever party in general truly does care about Americans other than themselves, wants to do a good job, and make our country a better and safer place. Most of the conspiracy theorists here will disagree, I'm sure. What has amused me over the years is watching people complain about the President, then when the other side wins the office, they complain about the new President as much or more than the last.


[edit on 4/28/2007 by TheAvenger]

I don't understand why she uses this accent... is she trying to prove something?

Does she understand how.. pathetic it is? How fake it sounds? How ignorant she looks and sounds?

Does she think this is connecting to the people?

I notice she typically talks like this to black people, maybe she thinks that how they talk??

Hal9000,

First of all, we went into Somalia under Bush senior...

Samolia was Clinton.

Forty-Second President
William J. Clinton
1993-2001

"In 1993, an elite group of American Rangers and Delta Force soldiers are sent to Somalia on a critical mission…"

"MOGADISHU, Somalia - Helicopter gunships attacked suspected al-Qaida fighters in the south Tuesday after U.S. forces staged airstrikes in the first offensive in the African country since 18 American soldiers were killed there in 1993, witnesses said. "

Sorry for getting that part of my history wrong. Black Hawk down was about Clinton sending military into Somalia.

I’m referring to Clinton sending troops into Kosovo in 98’ just about the same time his impeachment hearings were underway. Thanks for pointing out that I had missed another military assault attributed to Clinton.

I don’t see why Bush and the yahoos in Washington even brought up the whole thing about WMD. It was some stupid buzz word thought up as a media promotion and everybody grabbed on to it. The whole prupose of going into Iraq in the first place was because they were harboring and training terrorists, Bush as well as the congress and senate had already established that any country harboring terrorist would be considered an enemy. If the practice continued after being brought to their attention, it meant that we would take action ourselves. It was as simple as that. I don’t like the lies anymore than anyone else, but there's no point in taking sides, because all those guys are liars, demos and repubs both.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I don't understand why she uses this accent... is she trying to prove something?

Does she understand how.. pathetic it is? How fake it sounds? How ignorant she looks and sounds?

Does she think this is connecting to the people?

I notice she typically talks like this to black people, maybe she thinks that how they talk??

No she is that stupid.

She thinks we here in America are stupid therefore she treats us that way.

She thinks she is above us all and has to come down a few notches to our level.

I hope people realize what she is doing and say screw her, and not give her any votes.

Says a lot about her. Dosen't it?

Originally posted by lonewolf37
Hal9000,

First of all, we went into Somalia under Bush senior...

Samolia was Clinton.

Well the Black Hawk Down incident and the Battle of Mogadishu happened under Clinton, but we first went in under Bush in 1992.

Operation Provide Relief began in August 1992, when the Bush White House announced that U.S. military transports would support the multinational UN relief effort in Somalia.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by lonewolf37
I’m referring to Clinton sending troops into Kosovo in 98’ just about the same time his impeachment hearings were underway. Thanks for pointing out that I had missed another military assault attributed to Clinton.

Actually, many accused him of wagging the dog when he ordered the missile strike in Afghanistan in 98 to try to kill Bin Laden, and the same people later accuse him that he didn't do enough to kill OBL.

Originally posted by lonewolf37
The whole prupose of going into Iraq in the first place was because they were harboring and training terrorists, Bush as well as the congress and senate had already established that any country harboring terrorist would be considered an enemy.

You do know there was no connection between Sadaam and Al Queda right? Just checking, because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Originally posted by lonewolf37
I don’t like the lies anymore than anyone else, but there's no point in taking sides, because all those guys are liars, demos and repubs both.

Here I agree 100%, but I think this administration has gone too far.

My whole point is that the same people who are bashing the democrats don’t hold the current administration up to the same standards.

Just my .02.

Hal9000,
Well the Black Hawk Down incident and the Battle of Mogadishu happened under Clinton, but we first went in under Bush in 1992.

The Battle of Mogadishu or for Somalis Ma-alinti Rangers (“The Day of the Rangers”) was a battle that was part of Operation Gothic Serpent that was fought on October 3 and 4, 1993, in Mogadishu, Somalia, by forces of the United States supported by UNOSOM II against Somali militia fighters loyal to warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid.

This is the first sentence of the link you provided. It says the strike took place in 1993. Clinton was president 1993. By the way a relief effort and a military assault are two different things.

Hal9000,
Actually, many accused him of wagging the dog when he ordered the missile strike in Afghanistan in 98 to try to kill Bin Laden, and the same people later accuse him that he didn't do enough to kill OBL.

It’s true, he didn’t do enough, because they weren’t through with Bin Laden yet at that time. He also stopped short in Somalia regardless of who you think started it. The point is, however, he has blood on his hands, just like Bush and any other politician who has sent our men to war. The real question is whether the war is justified.

You do know there was no connection between Sadaam and Al Queda right? Just checking, because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Again I have to disagree with you. You’ve been listening to the mainstream media too much. Check this out and I think you’ll see what I’m talking about.

www.husseinandterror.com...

As you can see, Hussein had a regular terrorist Disney World in Iraq including Al Qaeda Land.

Funny thing, if you look at the quotes from various politicians saying there was no link between Hussein and al-Qaeda, they were all made around 2003 or later. Most of these guys were singing a different tune back in 2002 when we decided to go into Iraq. Kerry for instance voted YES to use of military force in Iraq.

www.vote-smart.org...

Hal9000,
My whole point is that the same people who are bashing the democrats don’t hold the current administration up to the same standards.

I hold all the politicians in DC to the same standards I hold anyone too. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any of them hold up to those standards in years. DC politicians have spent the last 3 decades trying to destroy morality in this country so that they don’t have any standards to be measured by. You know, that ‘Your OK, I’m OK’ crap.






[edit on 1-5-2007 by lonewolf37]

Overall, I don’t necessarily think going into Iraq was the wrong thing to do and I think it would be very irresponsible to just pull out when they are in such turmoil due to our actions. However, if we continue to fight this war politically instead of militarily, we are heading down the same path we did with Korea and Vietnam. Politicians can declare war obviously and can negotiate resolutions at the end, but leave the battles and tactics up to the experts and keep the ignorant politicians out of the actual war effort. They have no business making our soldiers lives their debating points. The only one I can think of that might have any right to even have an opinion is John McCain, because he’s lived through it (for real, not like Kerry).

By the way, Clinton attacked Iraq way before 9/11 and it was over nuclear sanctions. Can you imagine that? If we weren't worried about Iraq getting or having WMDs, why would we have nuclear sanctions on them for the past 15-20 years?

On June 26, 1993, Clinton bombed Baghdad in retaliation for an alleged but unproven Iraq plot to assassinate former President George Bush. Eight Iraqi civilians, including the distinguished Iraqi artist Layla al-Attar were killed in the raid, and 12 more were wounded. This kind of unilateral action in response to an unproven charge is a violation of international law.

www.thirdworldtraveler.com...

[edit on 1-5-2007 by lonewolf37]

Without turning this into a debate about the Iraq war, lonewolf37, I am not saying Clinton or any other ex president is innocent and they all have made mistakes and lied. All I am saying is that you can't compare any of the points you raise about Clinton to the current administration and the unnecessary war in Iraq.

Let's consider something else for a moment. Even after 9/11, if any other president was in power, we would not have invaded Iraq.

On the flip side, if 9/11 would not have happened, Bush would have still invaded Iraq.

The reason for invading Iraq did not have anything to do with 9/11, and more to do with regime change and creating a friendlier source of oil for the future as well as gaining strategic territory to build permanent military bases because we could not stay in Saudi Arabia.

This is all leading up to an eventual war with Iran, so if you think this is the end of the PNAC agenda or unless we change the direction we are heading, you will see they are just getting started.

Hal900,

I concede that it is most likely 'not over' and I have little doubt that Iran is in the radar for military action. Every day seems to be some new transgression made by the Iranians.

I don't agree that no other president would have went into Iraq, especially if (based on your reasoning) it is over oil supplies and military expansion. On the contrary this would seem to go along with my point that all the politicians in DC have the same agenda whether Demo or Repub. And it has nothing to do with the good of the American people. It's all about power and money.

However, I don't think it was a bad idea to put an end to Hussein's terrorist training grounds. The problem is that now we have to help Iraq try to establish a system where this type of activity doesn't continue to crop up. The trick is keeping the politicians out of the war efforts so the real soldiers can do there job. We have to realize, even though it sounds harsh, that guerrilla warfare calls for using the inhabitants as shields. This is the same thing we encountered in Vietnam and Korea. If there are civilians in the area that is occupied by the terrorists, then they are probably sympathizers or they would already be dead at the hands of those they live among. Therefore, give them advance warning of large scale military action being imminent and then go in with the bombers. Once the area is secured, fully occupy and do not allow the enemy to retake a foothold. This will be necessary in multiple stages until the terrorist are sufficiently scattered that they can not gin the level of organization they have currently reached. These types of military tactics that would be necessary to actually win in Iraq will never be employed as long as the politicians are calling the shots. It wouldn't be media friendly to do what is necessary to win a war in today’s times.

I agree this is the wrong place for a full scale debate of the Iraq war or 9/11 conspiracies. There are other threads for that. But as was seen in '98, Clinton was not above military action for even lesser reasons that 9/11 and I am certain that our current situation is part of a larger scheme of events that we have not seen the end of.

Originally posted by lonewolf37
I concede that it is most likely 'not over' and I have little doubt that Iran is in the radar for military action. Every day seems to be some new transgression made by the Iranians.

If you agree then I guess that means you will support the next war as well? The way I see it is that to continue to support the Bush administration is to support more war. Is that what you want?

I don't agree that no other president would have went into Iraq, especially if (based on your reasoning) it is over oil supplies and military expansion. On the contrary this would seem to go along with my point that all the politicians in DC have the same agenda whether Demo or Repub.

I don’t subscribe the puppet master theory that has control over both parties. If that were true, we would have gone to war with Iraq during the Clinton Administration, because that is when PNAC first asked him to go to war.

www.newamericancentury.org...

Furthermore, Clinton would not have been impeached, and Bush would not be receiving the static from the dems on the war now. Both parties are at each other’s throat, which is by no means appeasing the American people.

I believe the war in Iraq was a conspiracy hatched by PNAC, which I’m sure you know were all Neocons whom are the far right of the Republican Party. The agenda of PNAC is to increase the power of America in the future and one of the means was to gain a form of control of oil resources in the ME and build military bases in the area. When GB won the election in 2000, they were already planning on how to sell it to the American public long before 9/11. Some believe that 9/11 was an inside job that paved the way for the war, but I don’t think it was, but they did take advantage of it.

The trick is keeping the politicians out of the war efforts so the real soldiers can do there job.

I agree, but before we go to war, it is the politician’s job to avoid it, and not conspire to start one.

These types of military tactics that would be necessary to actually win in Iraq will never be employed as long as the politicians are calling the shots. It wouldn't be media friendly to do what is necessary to win a war in today’s times.

I agree the war has also been mismanaged, and would require more troops to stay a long time in order to keep the inevitable from happening, but I think to start the healing we should hold those accountable that got us into the war and have mismanaged it. We now need other people running things instead of the ones that started this mess.

I agree this is the wrong place for a full scale debate of the Iraq war or 9/11 conspiracies. There are other threads for that.

Well I don’t see anyone else complaining about our rants, and its been a good discussion so I don’t see the harm.

But as was seen in '98, Clinton was not above military action for even lesser reasons that 9/11 and I am certain that our current situation is part of a larger scheme of events that we have not seen the end of.

Yes but not to the same degree as the war in Iraq. I don’t see how you can compare the two. As I showed earlier, there were people that tried to get him to go to war with Iraq, and he refused. I think this shows that if lets say Clinton was still president after 9/11, we would not have invaded Iraq. I would go further to say that we would not have invaded if a democrat were president.

I will say that the agenda of PNAC in the future may pay off in the long run, but that is only if you want America to gain more power over other countries. I think it is better to cooperate with other countries instead of forcing our will over them. With a continued presence you will also have to accept that terrorist will see this as a threat and will continue to fight us to get us to leave. It will be a never ending battle.

So with respect, I ask again. Is this what you want for the future of this country?

Reality says we are not going to completely change a country that has been set in its ways for 3,000 years. But if we can help them set up a government that is not so user friendly for the average terrorist, I think it may be worth it. The problem is, they will move else where. The key is to deter them from future activities. This is not occurring, because we are not taking full advantage of our military superiority. To defeat an enemy you have to overwhelm the enemy. This, as I have said before, is much more difficult in a guerrilla warfare scenario. Especially when taking the innocent human lives of civilians is so clearly not an issue for the enemy.

On the other hand, I don’t believe in starting something that we don’t finish. We are on the identical same track, politically and militarily, that we followed in Vietnam. Right down to threatening the president with impeachment and pulling funding from our troops while they're still doing their best. If we are there we need to finish what we started, all the way. Politicians need to understand that war is not a popularity contest.