Clinton spins Monica in the library

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Ridiculous....both of them care about the American people and do or have done what they think is best for us. Saying otherwise is completely partisan and misguided.

I disagree.... I really feel Bill Clinton is a selfish self promoting ********. THat doesn't mean he didn't do some good things. I am the first to admit he was a great speaker and did good things for this country, however, there were many bad things too. All this is beside the point.

Bill CLinton Cared about himself first, and I think a lot of what he did was to protect his Image, and not necessarily in the best interest of the country.

What kills me is the whole Monica scandle. I will say, I thought it went a bit too far, but Bill still thinks he was the victim!!!! That is what bothers me most.
He still doesn't realize that that his family were victims.
Monica herself was a victim, and the US citizens were victims for puting their trust in his words under oath.
Ken Star was hired to do an investigation. That was his job. He is not the bad guy. Whether or not an investigation was necessary is a different topic. I may or may not agree with that.

But bill needs to step back and see that people other than himself suffered for his actions which he still believes were justified.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Ken Star was hired to do an investigation.

About Whitewater.....how did this relate?

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Quote

Ken Star was hired to do an investigation.

About Whitewater.....how did this relate?

Irrelevant to my post. I said I may or may not agree with the investigation of Monica, just as much as I may or may not agree with the investigation of WW. I am leaving my opinions out on that/those topics, because they are not really related to my overall point on his selfishness.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[storm1977 0]

PK, BTW- did you see the Jennings interview?

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[PhillyKev 0]

No, I didnt'.

[storm1977 0]

If you can, you should watch it.... It will give you an intersting view into Bill's mind.

A brief synopsis.
The interview is going fine, normal.. howeever you want to put it. Then Jennings told him(Clinton) he was ranked 41st on a list of Past presidents when it comes to Morallity. 41st, even lower than Nixon, Jennings says.

Then Bill gets VERY defensive... Saying the American people are wrong, they are just wrong. He tells Jennings, "You better not go there" after Peter Jennings said "It obviously affects you and hurts you".

Clinton then begins yelling at Jennings and NBC saying it is their fault... That NBC is tha cause of everything related to the Lewinski Scandle.... Never does bill clinton take any blame.... It is always everyone else.

Anyway, watch it. The whole thing. You will see his extream defensiveness and some of his true character come out. He unfortunately made himself look really bad, and really selfish.
This backs up the interview he had in England about a year ago, where he did the same type of thing.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[billvon 2,471]

>And using that logic we should just throw up our hands and quit? I can
>see why your engineer's mind can't concieve that things don't go exactly
>as planned all the time.

Actually, that's exactly what engineers do - try stuff, and see if it goes as planned. But if it doesn't (and here's the important part, pay attention) then we do something DIFFERENT. That's why cars today aren't wooden-spoked steam powered things that can make it to 20mph after warming up for an hour. When things don't work, you don't keep doing them. You figure out what your mistake is, and you fix it.

Of course, if you're a politician, if something you did doesn't work, you claim it does work and keep doing it. Engineers work in the real world, and thus don't have the luxury of claiming that a car (or a phone, or an airplane) that doesn't work really does.

>And with your help Bill, they'll win.

I think their best allies of Al Qaeda et al are the ostriches in Washington right now. Our tactics are increasing terrorism, allowing Afghan warlords to finance terrorism with record heroin profits, and turning the Arab world against us. Every time another US soldier is shown torturing an Arab, or shooting him in the head, Bin Laden smiles and rubs his hands together - more recruits!

To win we have to do several things:

1. Define victory in an unambiguous way.
2. Commit the troops needed to do it.
3. Do it while keeping our values intact.
4. Minimize collateral damage so we generate as little hatred as possible.
5. Keep the tactics/plans that work and abandon those that do not, even if they are someone's pet plans.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

If you add attacks against US embassies, troops and interests abroad, then we are failing at 'the war on terror.' They have been going up, not down, and MardigrasBob's assesement that things are getting better is backwards. That's why most conservatives are careful to say "attacks against US soil" because there has only been one since 9/11 - and that sounds much better than listing the thousands of terrorist attacks against US troops and contractors.

The discussion was about Al Qaeda attacks against the US.

If you claim every insurgent is part of AQ, that undermines your "AQ has no links to Iraq" position, doesn't it?

If you don't think all the insurgents are AQ, why bring it up? They have nothing to do with AQ attacks, then.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,471]

>The discussion was about Al Qaeda attacks against the US.

I know, but every time I mention that such attacks happen every 8-15 years, a right winger says "Oh, so you don't consider attacks against our embassies/troops real attacks?"

But you are correct; the original discussion was about AQ attacks against US soil (i.e. in the 50 states.) If they stick with their usual schedule we should see another in 2009. I hope the Iraq conflict does not accelerate that schedule.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The discussion was about Al Qaeda attacks against the US.

Huh? What's the difference if it's Al Queda or some other terrorist organization? Besides, Al Queda is a network of organizations. That's like saying, I'm not buying and American Home Products. Oh...but you just bought some Spaghettios. That's Chef Boyardee, not American Home Products.

[storm1977 0]

Quote

>The discussion was about Al Qaeda attacks against the US.

I know, but every time I mention that such attacks happen every 8-15 years, a right winger says "Oh, so you don't consider attacks against our embassies/troops real attacks?"

But you are correct; the original discussion was about AQ attacks against US soil (i.e. in the 50 states.) If they stick with their usual schedule we should see another in 2009. I hope the Iraq conflict does not accelerate that schedule.

I think with the US in Iraq and Afganastan, AQ's attention will be in other places for a little while. The organization is reported to be less, and their means of communication has been somewhat happered. I too hope nothing happens. If something does, I do not suspect it will be on the scale of 9/11. That type of attack given AQ's current situation seems quite difficult.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[billvon 2,471]

>I think with the US in Iraq and Afganastan, AQ's attention will be in
>other places for a little while. The organization is reported to be less,
>and their means of communication has been somewhat happered. I
>too hope nothing happens. If something does, I do not suspect it will
> be on the scale of 9/11. That type of attack given AQ's current
> situation seems quite difficult.

I agree with you there; I don't think another 9/11 will happen. What I worry about is our maritime ports, our interests overseas, and our troops; the 'new Al Qaeda' will be better equipped to make small hits with the larger number of suicide bombers they now have. It takes years of planning and millions of dollars to pull off something like 9/11. Unfortunately, to pull off a dirty bomb in NY harbor, all it takes is a shipping container, some used nuclear fuel and some explosives.

-------------------------------------------
The New Face of Al Qaeda
Douglas Frantz
LATimes
Sunday 26 September 2004

Al Qaeda seen as wider threat. The network has evolved into a looser, ideological movement that may no longer report to Bin Laden. Critics say the White House focus is misdirected.

RABAT, Morocco - Authorities have made little progress worldwide in defeating Islamic extremists affiliated with Al Qaeda despite thwarting attacks and arresting high-profile figures, according to interviews with intelligence and law enforcement officials and outside experts.

On the contrary, officials warn that the Bush administration's upbeat assessment of its successes is overly optimistic and masks its strategic failure to understand and combat Al Qaeda's evolution.

Even before the Sept. 11 attacks, Al Qaeda was a loosely organized network, but core leaders exercised considerable control over its operations. Since the loss of its base in Afghanistan and many of those leaders, the organization has dispersed its operatives and reemerged as a lethal ideological movement.

Osama bin Laden may now serve more as an inspirational figure than a CEO, and the war in Iraq is helping focus militants' anger, according to dozens of interviews in recent weeks on several continents. European and moderate Islamic countries have become targets. And instead of undergoing lengthy training at camps in Afghanistan, recruits have been quickly indoctrinated at home and deployed on attacks.

The United States remains a target, but counter-terrorism officials and experts are alarmed by Al Qaeda's switch from spectacular attacks that require years of planning to smaller, more numerous strikes on softer targets that can be carried out swiftly with little money or outside help.

The impact of these smaller attacks can be enormous. Bombings in Casablanca in May 2003 shook Morocco's budding democracy, leading to mass arrests and claims of abuse. The bombing of four commuter trains in Madrid in March contributed to the ouster of Spain's government and the withdrawal of its troops from Iraq.

Officials say the terrorist movement has benefited from the rapid spread of radical Islam's message among potential recruits worldwide who are motivated by Al Qaeda's anti- Western doctrine, the continuing Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the insurgency in Iraq.

The Iraq war, which President Bush says is necessary to build a safer world, has emerged as a new front in the battle against terrorism and a rallying point for a seemingly endless supply of young extremists willing to die in a jihad, or holy war.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Huh? What's the difference if it's Al Queda or some other terrorist organization? Besides, Al Queda is a network of organizations. That's like saying, I'm not buying and American Home Products. Oh...but you just bought some Spaghettios. That's Chef Boyardee, not American Home Products.

The difference is apples and orchards. It just changes the number sand dynamics of the conversation. I wanted to make sure we were all on the same page and considering the same circumstances.


Nestle - go ahead, try to boycott us, you poor saps

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Gravitymaster 0]

A related story?

http://www.nysun.com/article/5137

[storm1977 0]

Quote

I agree with you there; I don't think another 9/11 will happen. What I worry about is our maritime ports, our interests overseas, and our troops; the 'new Al Qaeda' will be better equipped to make small hits with the larger number of suicide bombers they now have. It takes years of planning and millions of dollars to pull off something like 9/11. Unfortunately, to pull off a dirty bomb in NY harbor, all it takes is a shipping container, some used nuclear fuel and some explosives.

I agree with you on possible tactics, however, a "dirty bomb is extremely inefficient. The public is not aware of that however, and the media makes it out like it would a 20mega ton nuke going off.

The truth is directly outside of the blast radius of a dirty bomb, it is highly unlikely anyone would die or even become sick from the nuclear fallout.

My company and I were recently tasked by homeland security to do an Urban Canyon study of plume distributions in NYC for chem, bio or dirty bomb.... So far the models hint at nothing "Significant".

Example of tolerance to nuclear material and their actual spread.

A full medical body scan is the equivilent radiological dosage as being 1.5 statute miles from ground zero at hiroshima.

How far do you suppose the fallout from a relatively small "Dirty Bomb" will travel in a concentrated form?

Chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[billvon 2,471]

>However, a "dirty bomb is extremely inefficient.

I agree there too, but it's the perfect terrorist weapon. If you detonated one in downtown Manhattan, the bomb's direct effects might kill 100 people, but the panic could kill thousands. "Nuclear weapon detonated in Central Park! Run!"

>How far do you suppose the fallout from a relatively small "Dirty Bomb"
>will travel in a concentrated form?

It depends what they use. If it's spent reactor fuel assemblies, not far at all - conventional explosives won't atomize them, it will just turn them into shrapnel, and the shrapnel won't travel farther than a few hundred yards. What it _would_ do is make a fairly large area unsafe to be around for a while. And if that place was, say, Wall Street, that could have bad consequences.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The big difference is that Clinton knew he was lying, and told that lie to escape a trial for sexual harassment. Bush knew only that he didn't have the proof to support his propoganda, but had a lot of circumstantial evidence

...to justify tens of thousands of deaths and 100's of billions of dollars.

What's worse? Someone who lies to protect themselves from a misdemeanor charge that effects no one else except the individuals involved, or someone who makes a guess...on bad information...and the guess is wrong...resulting in tens of thousands dead, hundred of billions wasted, and changing the global political climate to one of animosity toward the US?

So, your belief is that the relative "badness" of lying depends more on the consequences of the lie rather than the level of belief you have in the lie?

Again, Clinton knew he was lying. Paula Jones may well have been a GOP tool, but Clinton got her allegations dismissed as lacking any merit in part due to denying his history with subordinates. She didn't get a fair trial as a result. When it came out, suddenly he was ready to settle.

WRT the Iraqi war, you only mentioned the costs, and none of the benefits. Seems a bit dishonest.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What kills me is the whole Monica scandle. I will say, I thought it went a bit too far, but Bill still thinks he was the victim!!!! That is what bothers me most.
He still doesn't realize that that his family were victims.
Monica herself was a victim, and the US citizens were victims for puting their trust in his words under oath.

Monica was no victim. She was a consenting adult, one who willingly entered into an affair.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

So, your belief is that the relative "badness" of lying depends more on the consequences of the lie rather than the level of belief you have in the lie?

Yes. If someone intentionally steals a candy bar vs. someone who kills someone while driving drunk, the drunk driver is worse even thought they didn't mean to do it.

Quote

WRT the Iraqi war, you only mentioned the costs, and none of the benefits. Seems a bit dishonest.

Honestly, I don't see any benefits. I hear promises of benefits, but I believe in them as much as I believe in what we were told to get us involved in Iraq. Which is that we were either lied to, or the administration was just wrong. I lean toward the former, but the latter is bad enough.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Yes. If someone intentionally steals a candy bar vs. someone who kills someone while driving drunk, the drunk driver is worse even thought they didn't mean to do it.

Ok, but my reading of the analog has those switched. Clinton was accused of sexual assault. Surely that's worse than carrying out the inevitable end to the Saddam situation.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Clinton was accused of sexual assault. Surely that's worse than carrying out the inevitable end to the Saddam situation.

First of all, he wasn't accused of assault. He was accused of lying under oath about having consensual sex. And yes, I think that tens of thousands of deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars and still counting for both, is a lot worse than that.

Quote

Saddam hasn't attacked anyone lately.
Iraq is no longer at risk of invading oil producing nations.

This has been true since 1990.

Quote

Iraq no longer sends money to suicide bombers in Israel.

How many suicide bombings has that stopped?

Quote

Iraq serves as another warning to any country that would consider harboring al Queda elements.

Yeah, warned them not to cooperate with the US or UN because we'll just bomb them anyway.

Quote

If you don't see any benefits, you're lying to us. Don't think they justify the costs, fine.

I still don't see the benefits, independent of cost.

Quote

But you can't tell me that you knew that Iraq was complying with its surrender terms from 1991, and wasn't trying to rebuild its might as soon as it could get away with it.

I never said or thought otherwise. But they couldn't get away with it under existing conditions. There was ZERO need to go to war. There was no impending threat from Iraq. And don't tell me that you believe there was. Maybe you thought there might be before the war, the way the administration did. But maybes aren't good enough in my mind to justify a war, especially when the maybe is wrong.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

First of all, he wasn't accused of assault. He was accused of lying under oath about having consensual sex.

What exactly, then, did Paula Jones accuse him of? Was it not dropping his pants and offering some sort of benefits for fun?

Don't confuse the trial in Congress with the trial in the Real World.

[PhillyKev 0]

The only trial with Paula Jones that I'm aware of was a civil suit for sexual harassment. The one that she lost, and then appealed and then Clinton settled.

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Quote

What kills me is the whole Monica scandle. I will say, I thought it went a bit too far, but Bill still thinks he was the victim!!!! That is what bothers me most.
He still doesn't realize that that his family were victims.
Monica herself was a victim, and the US citizens were victims for puting their trust in his words under oath.

Monica was no victim. She was a consenting adult, one who willingly entered into an affair.

I agree she was consenting, but knowing Mr. Clinton, it is concivable she was manipulated and pursueded by him. She openly says he promised her things such as money and gifts.... She also said she truely loved him and thaought he felt the same way... He used her, and she was hurt.... But hey. Tha't they way love goes!!!!

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The only trial with Paula Jones that I'm aware of was a civil suit for sexual harassment. The one that she lost, and then appealed and then Clinton settled.

She didn't "lose" it; it was dismissed by the judge. And then reopened by that judge when the evidence of Clinton's perjury came to light. At which point he settled.

Amazing how different your description is from mine (and what really happened).

Assault, mind you, don't require physical violence to have occurred.