Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Camelot in Arkansas, do you remember when…………..

………… the Clinton Administration had all of those FBI files on Reagan and Bush Administration officials and Bill’s girl friends?

But hey, since they didn’t get indicted for procuring those files it sounds like just some of the good ol’ days Hill and Bill will restore if Evita gains power.

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

And now you whine when the D Congress is trying to investigate what the heck this administration has been doing....

Of course, I'm sure everything that the R machine has ever said about Bill and Hillary are based on "contextually accurate fact" and everything the D machine is saying about W and his administration is "defamatory hatred." - This is why so many people hate today's politics. And honestly, my side is just as guilty as your side.

Time to "turn the page."

Anonymous said...

Still trying to live in the past? It's pretty pathetic when you have to dredge up decade old talking points. I'd bet a lot of people would say things were a hell of a lot better during the Clinton years than they have been in recent years.

Anonymous said...

The reality is we live in a completely transparent world where there are no secrets. The upside is you're free to be yourself.

Amazing how much I can very learn about someone's life within a few minutes knowing how to use perfectly legal data mining techniques.

Will be very interesting when the veil on Hillary Clinton's private life falls in the campaign.

Anonymous said...

Nixon was forced to resign over ONE FBI file. Clintler (Heil Clintler!) had nine hundred.

Anonymous said...

Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. The Clintons are using their "past" as a campaign tool. They want us to return to their glory days. Well...let's just remember the glory days to which they want us to return.

We've seen the return of Illegal Chinese money again with Mr. Hsu. Do you suppose there are more of them?

Does anyone else think her extremely, wildly extremely successful money grab this quarter was really just an honest indication of all the love the country has for Hillary?

Don't think so. The Clinton Global Initiative is the current version of the money raising schemes for which the Clintons are mostly famous. Unfortunately, it will probably work because we won't find out about it until it doesn't matter anymore. They depend on that - (as happened with ACT run by Clinton toe sucker Harold Ickes)

They out-Soprano the Soprano's.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone else hear John Edwards' comment about young African-American males, as reported by Jim Geraghty of NRO:

Asked about what he could do about "inner-city kids partaking in violence" at the MTV/MySpace Forum yesterday, Democratic candidate John Edwards offered an apocalyptic prediction for young black males:

“We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating — pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two.”

Anonymous said...

Will any of the democRATS who attend this blog ask their elected officials to not spend this money?

Your Democrat City Council and your Democrat Board of Supervisors want to give $200 million to a private person to build a hotel for profit.

They want to spend $10 million for a white water rafting course.

How many poor folks do you suppose these expenditures help? How much health insurance could this buy? How many children could be saved? How many lawn mowers could Culver hire?

Maybe they could send that over to Iraq and help pay for the war.

Isn't that what you guys are mostly interested in...finding ways to pay for our national defense?

Anonymous said...

The FBI files matter, or ``Filegate,'' is as serious an issue as the Clinton administration has encountered.

The discovery of the unauthorized access to so many FBI background files on so many former White House employees is bad enough.

These files contain the most private and personal information on an individual, his spouse and family.

The fact that two individuals, Craig Livingstone and Anthony Marceca, with extensive political involvement and checkered pasts were in charge of handling the files is cause for alarm and investigation.

Anonymous said...

In general, the FBI files issue shows a lack of respect by the Clinton administration for proper security procedures to protect... national security.

The Clinton White House displayed a lack of respect for the privacy and confidentiality of private citizens.

The mere fact that individuals lacking in professional skills and discretion were put in charge demonstrates the cavalier approach of the Clinton administration toward sensitive security matters.

Anonymous said...

Since May 30, 1996, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has conducted an intensive investigation into the actions of the White House and the Department of Justice concerning the White House's improper acquisition of hundreds of FBI background investigation files of former Republican officials.

The genesis of this revelation of massive invasion of privacy was with the committee's document requests for all previously withheld files on Billy Dale.

Anonymous said...

so what is shillary's position on invading the privacy of terrorists? She's against that I recall. She just wants to invade the privacy of potential enemies.

Anonymous said...

Another FBI agent who was assigned to the White House, Gary Aldrich, recalled a conversation with Assistant Counsel and Rose Law Firm partner Bill Kennedy.

Mr. Kennedy asked the agent what type of person should be in the position of Director of the Security Office. Agent Aldrich answered that it should be ``somebody squeaky clean, meticulous, careful, discreet, mature, someone with a depth of understanding of security issues.''(138)

Mr. Kennedy later told Agent Aldrich: ``it doesn't matter anyway; it's a done deal. Hillary wants him [Livingstone] for that slot.''(139)

Both Agent Sculimbrene and Aldrich testified that Kennedy told them that he had to hire Craig Livingstone.

Mrs. Clinton publicly denied hiring or even knowing who Craig Livingstone was until this year.

In response to questions by reporters during her trip in Helsinki on July 10, 1996, Mrs. Clinton said, ``I did not know him. I did not have anything to do with his being hired, and I do not remember even meeting him until sometime in the last year.''

In contrast, an intern working in the White House Office of Personnel Security informed this committee of an encounter with Mrs. Clinton that puts her denials of knowing Craig Livingstone in question.

White House intern, Gina Gibson, said that she was being shown around the White House when she saw Mrs. Clinton approaching from down the hall. Ms. Gibson said that as Mrs. Clinton passed she said ``Hello Craig'' and kept on walking.(140)

Ms. Gibson interned at the White House from May 1994 through July 1994, well before the time period Mrs. Clinton said she first knew who Craig Livingstone was.

Anonymous said...

Al Gore endlessly bragged to the media about his service in Vietnam. "I took my turn regularly on the perimeter in these little firebases out in the boonies. Something would move, we'd fire first and ask questions later," he told Vanity Fair.

And then we found out Gore had a personal bodyguard in Vietnam, the most dangerous weapon he carried was a typewriter, and he left after three months.

Anonymous said...

FORT PIERRE, S.D. (AP) State Senator Dan Sutton of Flandreau has been sued for $250,000 in damages by former legislative page Austin Wiese (WEES), who alleges Sutton groped him in a motel room in Fort Pierre.

Wiese's lawsuit alleges two counts of sexual battery and one count of sexual assault. It's a civil lawsuit no criminal charges have been filed.

The suit claims Sutton invited Wiese to stay with him at the motel during the 2006 session.

Court documents say they shared the one bed in the room and that on three nights in a row, Sutton inappropriately touched and fondled Wiese, who then moved out of the room.

Wiese, now 19, says he has suffered mental anguish, shame, indignity, embarrassment, pain and suffering.

He's being represented by former Congressman and Governor Bill Janklow.

Early this year, the state Senate held a hearing on the allegations. The Senate then voted to censure Sutton rather than expel him.

Anonymous said...

WATERLOO, Iowa (AP) - Barack Obama says he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin because it has become a substitute for "true patriotism" since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Asked about it Wednesday in an interview with KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the Illinois senator said he stopped wearing the pin shortly after the attacks and instead hoped to show his patriotism by explaining his ideas to citizens.

Anonymous said...

Notice how he intends to tell us what WILL make America great rather than what IS great about America. Wearing the FLAG prevents him from expressing himself as a patriot.

That's just ridiculous - sounds like someone who is ashamed to be an American. - Just a typical Democrat.

"I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest," he said in the interview. "Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism."

Barack Hussein Obama

Anonymous said...

Looks like they aren't even trying to be subtle anymore about their goal of eliminating conversatives from the free public airwaves.

Wesley Clark sold his soul to the devil named Billary too. He was fired as a NATO commander for incompentence, but he's the best military guy hillary has. He intends to become Secretary of Defense under Hillary.

------
Wednesday, October 3, 2007 8:44 AM

In a blog to the Huffington Post, former NATO Supreme Commander Wesley Clark called for Congress to immediately take steps to remove conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh from Armed Forces Radio.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Deplorable Old Bulldog said...

The articles add context and help drive the political discussion. That's part of our mission statement.

We're not that squeamish but calling someone a "douche bag" for sharing info on a political blog doesn't.

The Deplorable Old Bulldog said...

now, on to the debaate, rf:

i cannot speak for everything said on the right about clinton. i can speak for what i say about the clintons.

the clintons are gangsters, unlike any other politicians since nixon. you, yourself, oppose hillary and your instincts are true, luke. i might think obama is a weak kneed lib but i don't he's a gangster, same is true for the breck girl, joe, and chris and even the nutty gravel and even nuttier kucinich.

can you imagine the democrat reaction if w had 1000 democrat fbi files in the political office. think of the canards floated about rove?

so, i am citing specific fact, in its correct context. it may not have been criminal but it certainly isnt' very clean.

wait 'til we start talking about th bags of chinese cash, cash for christ's sake, exchanged in the white house.

Anonymous said...

I agree on the articles. They contribute much more to the discussion on this blog than all the rude anons combined. The rude ones must be some Krusty veterans with no other place to hang out.

Using your "contextually accurate fact" standard, people calling W war criminal, liar, torturer or Cheney's puppet are all telling the truth. Plenty of contextually accurate facts to support those statements. If we set the bar for the level of discussion this low, we will always remain in the gutter. That does no good for our country and does not advance real issue debate at all. I have a real problem with that.

Anonymous said...

rf - it really only tells us about the person who holds the opinion that W is a war criminal.

Many of us who understand what is at stake with the battle in Iraq, think W is doing the right thing.

So, we have two different opinions of W, but W is still the same. Who's right and who's wrong?

It's an opinion that reflects our individual values and belief structures.

You have no facts. You just have an opinion that purusing national security causes a president to be a war criminal.

The D's have been doing that for decades and is why they have the reputation for being soft on national defense.

I have a real problem with that.

Anonymous said...

rf - it really only tells us about the person who holds the opinion that W is a war criminal.

Many of us who understand what is at stake with the battle in Iraq, think W is doing the right thing.

So, we have two different opinions of W, but W is still the same. Who's right and who's wrong?

It's an opinion that reflects our individual values and belief structures.

You have no facts. You just have an opinion that purusing national security causes a president to be a war criminal.

The D's have been doing that for decades and is why they have the reputation for being soft on national defense.

I have a real problem with that.

Anonymous said...

sorry for the double post..screen jammed.

Anonymous said...

and...thanks for your politeness and contributions, even though we usually disagree. It's fun.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Anon. You are kind. While Sporer may think I'm a real pain, I enjoy the exchanges with your side. I think our country desperately needs honest discussion across the aisle. I just wish we could debate without having to resort to needless personal attacks.

"You have no facts"

There are plenty of facts to support all of the W characterizations I mentioned. It doesn't mean it's constructive, though. The bottom line is, we all have our facts, or things we believe are facts. We just conveniently pick the facts or wannabe-facts to support our cause.

"You just have an opinion that purusing national security causes a president to be a war criminal."

You are also only expressing your opinion. Nothing more. One can make a strong argument, which I happen to agree with, that W's tenure and Iraq adventure have made our national security situation much more precarious than before.

Anonymous said...

BTW, I did not say I myself think W is a war criminal. I only pointed out that there are plenty of contextually accurate facts to support those kinds of statements.

Anonymous said...

I disagree on the articles, Ted. I skip over them to see if rf and noneed are stringing together a coherent thought.

The articles just waste bandwidth. Sharing information is one thing, stifling the debate is another.

Anonymous said...

don't really care quis. why don't you give us the big techno lecture on how to do what you feel needs done so that you are personally satisfied with your experience. the weblinks don't work on the comments, or we are just ignorant on the subject. please share. we don't want you to be wasting your bandwith for gods sake. Let's not have that.

Labels