Arkansas Blog

BTW Where has Bush let Osama get off to anyway. Why our Troops who are being used as pawns in the Iraqi Civil war.

Being Killed and Wounded for What?
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

Well, personally I am glad he showed a flair of indignance. The importance of what is happening and how the repugs portray the other side (us) as weak go hand in hand.

If we respond with no real passion, then we aren't heard. If Clinton had sat there and simply tried to rebutt Wallace then this event would have garnered only a smidgen of the attention his little "crazed" routine did.

People are dying and our future is being incontrovertibly altered by these bozos.

And all they can point to as the problem with everything is a man got a blowjob in the wrong place.

I wish that was all Bush & his cronies had done wrong.

BIGFAN1, I was coming here to say the very same thing! What we lack and need is some emotion, some temper. Regarding the public's reaction to the non-stop Republican crap, where's our party's outrage?

If Clinton had calmly delivered his rebuttal in gentleman-like fashion, we non-Fox viewers would never have even heard about this interview.

I've been saying for over a year that what we need is someone like Howard Dean who comes across as real, as honestly saying what he thinks, speaking with conviction, rather than people like Nancy Pelosi, who always comes across to me as simply repeating the partisan line they have agreed to in the Democratic caucus.

Hoorah for Clinton. The spineless, gutless Democrat leadership is a shame to the party. They allow the GOP bullies to fire away and refuse to be brought into the foray and to respond in kind. We keep waiting for them to show some spine and fortitude but other than Murtha the ranks of those having the courage to respond in kind are few in numbers. I can only hope other Democrats will take the example shown by Clinton and piss on Brummett.

I respectfully disagree (for fear of being labeled as crazed). If anyone steps out of the house long enough and engages with his or her fellow man, it doesn't take long to notice that we've move forward in our stages of grief. We are no longer sad--we're angry. We feel as though this country has been hijacked by the republican party and that makes us just a little less angry than the hijackers themselves. This is because on some level the Republicans are right. When faced with a threat the likes of we are today, we need to be united. Unfortunately we don't have that luxury. The Retards are making such irresponsible choices that we have to fight back control of this country in order to protect ourselves. So did Clinton look angry? Good he looked angry. Have you spoken with a democrat lately? We are angry and we have every right to be so. I am sick and tired of Democrats allowing themselves to be asked loaded questions that are more like a cross-examination--meaning the question is more about the answer than the response--and giving a short and wholly inadequate response. Its high time our "leadership" get mad too. Its high time they really answered the questions. Don't let them cut you off. Answer the question. When they try to cut you off, cut them off. When the start talking just keep talking until they stop and force them to listen to a real response--one that not only answers the direct question but the question behind the question. Unpack all the B/S. Call a spade a spade. I tell you what! Our lack-of-anger is why democrats are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this fall. If we are smart, we will take a queue from Clinton and fight because I am sick and tired of being swift-boated. I am sick and tired of this administration getting a free ride from our fourth branch of government (the free press). I am sick and tired of our country sending troops to thier death for a war that is illegal. I am sick and tired of this president breaking the law and no one doing or saying anything about.

So I respectfully disagree

Brummet's correct...Clinton's 'fit' (flaws too) fed my partisan ire. Above everything else, it reminded me of how completely the Bush administration has controlled the dialog in this country...how completely 'cowed' most Democratic politicians seem to be...how much I yearn for someone to interject some real anger into these fake talking-head discussions. I'm sick of Rove's lying spin that's usually a complete contradiction to everything that's come before.

Clinton's hardly a saint and, like all presidents, needs more journalists asking tough/irritating questions rather than less. And if I had my way I would have preferred he'd went off on Hannity or O'Reilly rather than Wallace. But the carnage coming from Iraq every day combined with the stay-the-disaster fairy tale coming out of the White House have created a surreal environment where a partisan Clinton temper tantrum seemed over due and much needed. We should be angry...very angry (my gosh it's not like he used profanty, hit Wallace or even challenged him to a duel).

McCain should have gotten angry at Bush...Kerry should have kicked Swiftboat ass...Clinton did get angry at recent attempts to lay Bush's crap on his door (hey, he's got enough of his own baggage). Rove's particularly nasty brand of politics crossed civil/mannered lines of behavior a long time ago. So it's about time Democrats realize that if they keep playing by the 'old' rules of political behavior Rove will kick their politically correct butts...again.

Consider this assessment:

The problem with the President and his policy is simple, and twofold. First it is run by hard core ideologues who every day appear trigger happy for new wars, having failed to properly run the existing wars. And second, it is run by ideologues who have no military service records and, therefore, no understanding of military policies, military needs, military life, and military traditions.

I do not question the lack of service of the President, the Vice President, and virtually every other senior member of his Adminstration and virtually every leading neoconservative who has dangerously dominated our policy from the beginning, until now, except for this:

The disrespect shown to our former Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki, who tried to warn them, is only an ugly public show of a dangerously wrong attitude that harms our country, our troops and our security every day, since this conflict in Iraq began.

They do not understand military expertise, and they disrespect those who have it. They do not understand military requirements, so they ignore commander advice and go to war with too few troops. They do not understand military life, so they turn troop rotations into practices that become involuntary servitude and border on a backdoor draft.

The problem is not a moral judgment on their lack of military service, it is a dangerous lack of experience combined with a dangerous lack of respect, for those who have it.

They do not understand the proper role of our Guard and Reserves, so they abuse those vital services, and disrupt the lives of those who serve and their families, which are far outside their life experience. They do not understand the moral and military duties of civilian leaders to those who wear the uniform, because they have never been there, or done that, so they send troops to war without adequate armor, bandages and helmets among many other things.

They are so far removed from military culture, military life, and the responsibilities and duties of civilians who control our forces, that even when they read stories about Moms and Dads asked by sons and daughters in combat, to buy from home supplies that were not provided from Washington, they are not moved to action, they are moved to write talking points of excuse or call our troops complainers.

Because of their lack of military experience, and their lack of respect for those who have it, they do things that we know are unthinkable. When commanders and special forces plead for reinforcements to kill Bin Laden at Tora Bora, they so no, because their obsession to war in Iraq exceeded their commitment to kill Bin Laden. When commanders plead again and again for troop support, or armor, or better protected vehicles, they say no, or delay, because they have never been there, and do not understand.

Because of their lack of military experience, and their lack of respect for those who have it, they ignore and mock the unanimous view of every commander in every service to honor the Geneva Convention. Never having been there, or done that, they do not understand, as every commander and every enlisted man and woman understands, that the Geneva Convention was not created to protect our enemies, but to protect our own troops.

Because of their lack of military experience, and their lack of respect for those who have it, they listen to those who want meager and inadequate pay for those who serve, claiming lack of money, while they excuse stealing and corruption that may total $10 billion of the money for Iraq, because it helps their friends, and campaign contributors.

They listen to voices calling for cuts in help for brain injury treatment for wounded troops.

They tolerate for years our active duty troops being ripped off on loans with rates higher than the Mafia charges its loan sharking victims.

They stand idly by, when debt collectors make harrassing calls to wives and husbands of heroes who serve, threatening to reposses their homes and cars, because this is not part of their lives, this is not part their world, when they send troops to harm, from the safety of their citadels of power.

They listen to voices calling for closure of military hospitals, citing budget pressures, while they cut taxes, which cost hundreds of billions of dollars, to buy political support at home, while they impose sacrifice on those who serve abroad.

Lacking military experience themselves, and lacking respect for those who have it, they do not believe intelligence is meant to make informed decisions about whether to go to war, or how to manage a war, as every military commander knows and believes. Rather, they believe intelligence is just another political weapon in their obsessions of ideology, to be twisted and distorted when the truth may contradict their obsessions, to be ignored when the facts call for changes in policy, at great cost to those who serve.

Lacking military experience themselves, and lacking respect for those who have it, they never understood that one of the great rules for success in war, is unity at home. Rather than unite the nation behind the policy, they divide the nation, deliberately, to support their partisanship, at great cost to those who serve.

Five months ago, the combined resources of the American intelligence community issued a National Intelligence Estimate which held that the war in Iraq was creating more danger, creating more terrorists, creating more threats to America.
---Brent Budowsky

The complete article is here:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/430

Shoot, man...I don't blame Clinton for losing his cool.

When Wallace opened up that question with his comment that he got a ton of emails from FOX viewers wanting him to ask it...well, that just speaks volumes of the bozos that worship O'Reilly types...

This morning Condi Rice is taking Clinton to task, through the editorial board of the New Yank Post by the way, in challenging his assertion that he left a battle plan for the Bush administration regarding Al Qaeda...

Stay on 'em, Bill!

As I watched Clinton respond to Chris Wallace, I kept thinking to myself that I hope our Democratic leaders are watching and taking notes. Every Democrat should be ready to respond as Clinton did when anyone tries to set them up and put them in a box.

When a Democrat is making a point and a conservative starts talking over him or her, the Democrat should continue to talk, making the point over and over until the conservative shuts up. Don't answer the question, respond to the subject. Reframe the question --- just as Clinton did --- to set the record straight before responding. Republicans have learned to manipulate the dialog, but Democrats can learn some verbal jujitsu moves of their own.

Once again, Clinton has shown the way. It is up to the national leadership to follow his example.
.

You responsible journalism go here:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/25/olbermanns-special-comment-are-yours-the-actions-of-a-true-american/

I for one am sick to death of mealy mouthed Dems being afraid to show any passion or anger at the way they, we and this country are being treated and sold down the river by the repugs.
Plus, Clinton is a private citizen who's honor (what he has left) has been impunged (sp?) and he should be angry and fight back. I've always admired a man who will stand up for himself....too bad duels are no longer in style.

We should be mad.
Stop being NICE, take back this country.
Some days it seems like the only Dem in Washington with a pair of balls is Nancy Pelosi.

Well, it looks as if the votes on this one are not going Brummett's way, huh?

Count me as one of those American's who got energized by Clinton while reading and watching his performance on Fox. I'm on his side. Go, man, go. I loved it.

Yeah. Me too. Maybe I'm looking at a skewed version of this, but I watched the entire interview - once for information, and then again for pure damn fun - and I didn't see Clinton "losing control". What I saw was Clinton "taking control" of the conversation, instead of being steamrolled by a little TV guy who was getting a little too big for his britches. In other words, Wallace opened himself up, and Bill bitch-slapped him. I'd like to see that done to every one of them. The sooner, and the harder, the better. The REpugs just can't have it both ways. Lie down and take it, and they call you a "wimp". Stand up and fight, and they say you "lost your cool". Screw all of 'em. Given the choices, I'll take "uncool". And it sounds, here at least, like maybe I'm not the only one.
Give 'em hell Bill.

From the article: What it did was galvanize the polarized. It strengthened Clinton as champion to some. It strengthened Fox as champion to others. Any hope of either going away was tragically lost.
********
Mr. Brummett is absolutely correct. From the blog comments, I understand the cheering and enthusiasm that Mr. Clinton is finally "telling it like it is". And maybe this will help Democrats.

But, if you keep an ear open to the other side, you will hear an equal amount of cheering and celebration, since the Republicans catcall that this shows how out of control and childishly belligerent he can be when he gets in to the immature posturing, name calling, finger pointing and physically getting in Mr. Wallace's space.

A president should be able to be forceful and project righteous (even though calculated) anger and indignation. I would expect that from Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush even the passive Mr. Carter. After all, his "legacy" is being challenged.

But, my goodness, the man is the (former) president of the United States. He consorts with presidents, kings, dictators and world leaders. What a powerful persona he should have . . . And he lets a TV reporter get his goat. He should be able to calmly, energetically, forcefully and directly intimidate a lesser TV reporter with his physical presence and mastery of the facts.

Instead, he reverted to his childhood schoolyard days - and really, I think everybody got what they wanted to see. Including me.

"He was right, but he gave up ground by losing his temper."
Yea, that's wrong with America, angry liberals & their demon God Clinton.

So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
John 2:15

Nice quote Zatharus - but your passage cites a direct action against individuals occupying and prostituting sacred ground.

Mr. Clinton . . . was in a TV interview. Maybe we should be thankful he didn't get the whip from Hillary before he went on the set.

Many years ago a friend of mine responded to a lady who commented that she felt "saddened" by the conditions under which so many sharecroppers in the South lived: "Ma'am, sadness is not a fitting response. The approriate reaction is anger."

Similarly, it seems to me, Clinton's response was exactly right in both content and manner of delivery. Non-verbal communication is nearly always more effective than verbal communication, and it is not enough to counter an attack question with reasons alone. The Bush administration and its media minions are attacking. What we need is a vgorous counterattack.

DK said:
Mr. Clinton . . . was in a TV interview. Maybe we should be thankful he didn't get the whip from Hillary before he went on the set.

I like it but I'm a bit confused. Do you mean "get the whip" as in an instrument to beat Wallace with or as in administerting a whipping to Bill before he left the house? Both images resonate in my mind, DK.
You've been a naughty boy, Bill! Whack! Whack! Whackity-whack!!
Knick-knack, paddy-WHACK, give the boy a cigar!

Well, actually, I was thinking of him taking it to the interview, but your other proposal is an interesting picture . . .

Regarding my earlier statement ( " I think everybody got what they wanted to see. Including me.") - I think I'm pretty disappointed in myself. That performance was not what I really WANTED to see. But it was what I expected - even more so. And it provided a lot of unfortunate satisfaction that justifies how low my opinion is of him.

After all, he IS the former president of our country.

Instead, I should be hoping for an increase in his stature that I can find acceptable.
But, that's kind of like entertaining the guilty pleasure you get from hearing gossip. Its not right - so what do you do about it?

I guess a start will be refraining from any further comment.

I think we've been fed too much political correctness the last 10 years. When did justified anger get linked with bat-shit crazy? I have watched the Clinton interview 4 or 5 times and I see a man justifiably angry. Added to what must be Clintons grief over what Bush has done with the relatively peaceful and prosperous country Clinton handed him, was the sorry spectacle of ABC's whack-job Path to 9-11.

Bet if we called Don's mother a filthy scum-sucking whore
he'd pop a cork too. Those who are not Republicans have witnessed 6 years of Bush wiping his ass with the American flag and it's high time we put polite back in the box and get down right ugly about it.

We have seen what the Mark Pryor brand of aw shucks politeness has gotten us. Be polite to the next rabid dog you encounter and write us a little essay from your hospital bed. We are not playing a kid's parlor game here, an entire political party has banned together to steal our country away from us. And they're at least 3/4s of the way along their mission.

Clinton's justifiably angry words are not enough. It's too bad Clinton didn't lean across and smack the bejesus out of Chris Wallace. It's time to punch George Allen every time he's caught using a racial slur. It's time to strangle Bill Frist when he avoids a direct question and rattles off a big lie. It's time to scare the shit out of Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln for not doing their jobs in DC, protecting us from people trying to steal our country.

My history shows I am not a violent man, but I feel violent everyday now. I cannot feel kindly towards people too stupid to know what's going on, much less the actual perpetrators of Bush's madness. In their guts, Arkansas Republicans know what's going on. They're proud that the Bush side is winning. Exactly why, I don't understand. But they know and don't deserve our polite-ness.

It will be their kids too, who die in Iraq and Iran and Syria. It will be their kids too, who are saddled with Bush's debt. It will be their kids too, who live in a different America. A place ruled by Big Brother, a place of reduced freedoms, a truth-less nation that's become the bully of the world.

And their kids will die right along with mine when the 3/4 of the world that Bush has whipped up to hate us comes calling, and you know they will. I doubt Chris Wallace and that bunch paid any attention to the report yesterday that the Iraq war has made us less safe in America, not more safe as the lying Republicans would have us believe.

The Bush-Cheney Republican Party wants to see America develop into a 1 party political system. They believe the top 10% should act as overseers for the other 90%. A new modern Republican slavery is settling on American workers. At the same time big business is moving our jobs away to profit themselves, the true bankers of the Republican Party.

If we don't get much madder than Bill Clinton, in 10 years the United States will not be recognizable. Our children will become serfs, not voters. The new USSA will be feared and hated, maybe even more than we are now. And before we know it, we'll have American suicide bombers in Kansas City.

I do not apologize for Clinton's anger, he wasn't angry enough. Republicans and weak Democrats will not be happy until there is rioting in the streets. I'm more than ready to give it to them. I won't sit quietly and watch my country slip under the waves, pushed down by the Bush-Cheney hand. Anger is as right and real as hunger, and there must be something wrong with you if you aren't angry every day.

The Republican Party must be stopped, in fact they must be destroyed. Let's show them they really haven't seen anger yet.

I think we have a new disease in the making. PBSD. Post Bush Stress Disorder. DBI, my man, you seem to have the malady in its severest form. Too bad we have to wait 2 more sufferin' years for the cure.

Tax Payer posted this over on my blog and I think it is important enough to carry over to the main blog. What the Washinton Post and the New York Times and CNN and MSNBC and every other media group should be focusing on is not Clinton's rage, but the truth in what he said.

Click on my name to see how much truth Clinton spit into Wallace's smirky face last Sunday.

I didn't expect you to get it, thanks for confirming the worst. My point was that if anger invalidated the argument then Jesus was just an angry white male. If you would like to get into the substance of what was said in the interview then do so. The focus on style plays into the hands of the base (al-Qaeda). If the media response is your interest, please explain the abdication of responsibility to think & feel for ourselves in lieu of some corporate emotional fealty.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger."
J. R. R. Tolkien (1892 - 1973)

I am done with the media! I would like to see a petition drive to get answers to the questions on the media matters page answered by Bush himself--not Condi, not Rumi, not Cheney, BUSH! Bush himself. I want him to answer them.

Even in the midst of an out-of-control fit, Clinton was twice as stately and ten times more coherent than GWB on his best unscripted day. Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago that Bush blew up during a morning interview at the Oval Office, when he was asked a question not on the approved list and not allowed to change the subject? Compare the two interviews ... Clinton was angry but got his point across; Bush sounded like a babbling idiot.

Good idea, TP. But the Duhhbyuh doesn't speak for himself. Too risky. Doesn't know enough words. Has to wait for somebody to write his answers, then read them to him. Still, it would be nice to have somebody ask him questions and get honest replies, without having a chance to rehearse them first. Better yet, put him under oath, then ask them. Of course, NObody would do that to a president, would they?

I guess none of you has ever watched a White House press conference. David Gregory and Helen Thomas lead the pack to ask Bush much worse questions.

BUSH! Blaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!

That's right, BUSH! They ask BUSH!

The fact is that the president and his administration get much less polite questions all the time. The difference is that they aren't petulant children who think that they shouldn't have to answer for what they do. Clinton has a lot to answer for and the fact is that he has always gotten a pass on this in interviews, whereas the president and his administration always get asked questions like these.

"BIGFAN1, I was coming here to say the very same thing! What we lack and need is some emotion, some temper. Regarding the public's reaction to the non-stop Republican crap, where's our party's outrage?"

I do hope that your lib leaders will take up Clinton's mantle of "indignance". Show the country how incapable y'all are of holding up under scrutiny. I really enjoyed watching Clinton derail. He is a small, vindictive man and he showed the country that.

I especially like the wipe that smirk off your face comment.

So you don't like liberals. Fine.

You don't like the people who: fought for or enacted clean air and water standards, worker safety protections, the 40-hour work week, the social security program, the civil rights movement, the equal rights movement, the free speech movement, discrimination protections, the free school lunch program, birth control, rural electrification, organized labor, child-labor laws, the minimum wage, employee healthcare benefits, public assistance, Americans with Disabilities Act, fair housing legislation, the Freedom of Information Act, the Voting Rights Act, food and drug safety regulations, federally subsidized student loans, collective bargaining..

And everything else they have done to put power back into the hands of the individual, and out of the hands of the ruling and corporate elite.

I am proud to stand up for my liberal beliefs. How about your list for conservative beliefs? Please be so kind as to list them for us. Who do they give power to?

Just remember that both liberal and liberty come from the same Latin word, liber, meaning "to be free."

Why do the the far right repigs hate Clinton so much. It's fear plain and simple to the far right repigs that Clintons is still popular . Because the repigs know that if people wake up to that fact that they have been lulled asleep by Buch/Cheney/Rove/Rummy and the rest of the wingnuts. That is could be light's out for the Neocon movement in 06 & 08. That is why the wingpigs will play the fear card to keep the lulled asleep American people sleeping. If America was a fortune 500 company that had stockholders liike say HP has or run up massive red ink & never turn a profit like some CEO's have done. These clowns would have been kicked out on their ass a long time ago.

Go here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032633/

and watch Carvel and Begala on NBC's Today Show.

The emperor has no clothes.

Go here and watch a 9/11 commissioner render Bush's answer about why he didn't respond to the Cole:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/26/what-did-bush-do-about-the-cole/

Go here to get the Daily Show coverage:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/26/daily-show-rips-cable-news-for-clinton-coverage/

And by the way, his coverage makes Brummett look like a D/A.

Right on your page, Tax Payer...click on my name for the points addressed regarding Mona Lisa Rice's idiotic rants to the New Yank Post this morning...

Bet if we called Don's mother a filthy scum-sucking whore
he'd pop a cork too. -Posted by: Deathbyinches
********
You know, this just goes to show that no good deed goes unpunished. This is my reward for committing to personally refrain from further comments and keep the discussion civil.

Oops...sorry about that...now you can click on my name...

And Don, you made a crack the other day about DBI's fidelity...

And Don, you made a crack the other day about DBI's fidelity...
Posted by: rosso

Well, DBI has, Jimmy Carter-style, confessed to lusting in his heart a few times.

Perhaps more than a few times...

True, Spirit...

I confess I am guilty as well, then...

Folks I think the Narative is shifting to our favor. Like Carvel says, lets see any of them go onto the Sunday Talkshows now and not get asked these questions. Then when they are allowed to pass on the subject, the lefty blogoshere will riot over their answers with the echo-chamber reverbrating all over again.

Disney thought that they could do a little terror-porn movie on Clinton and that he would take it. WRONG. And this is also why Brummett's read is so wrong too. Everyone thinks that Clinton didn't do this, to some degree, on purpose. But lets look at the facts: He went on there with the ground-rules being that they would split the topics between his CGI and "anything they wanted to talk about." COME ON! This is Fox News baby, you have to know what they are going to ask him. In light of the terror porn and the need to place the blame on Clinton, they were going to ask him about why he didn't do enough.

Second point. Clinton was prepared. Remeber he told Chris to "tell the truth you never ask that did you. Tell the truth." He'd had research done so he knew exactly what he was doing.

This is good for democrats. Clinton just gave them liscense to discuss what had been hiding in the recesses of the political landscape.

This is good for Commissioners. I think you will see them coming forward to share what did and did not go into the 9/11 report. We may get to see how much of a political document that is.

Ths is good for america. If we are lucky, we may be able to take back the country and return to prosperity.

And Don, you made a crack the other day about DBI's fidelity... Posted by: rosso
********
Rosso: Lets at least keep this in context- remember the exchange?
***
DBI: Oh Don, it's real simple. I would have had sex with Monica as often as I could. I would have lied when someone asked me about my personal life.

DK: And DBI, if you are faithful to your spouse, you don't have to lie to him/her.
***
Not sure what got DBI's goat. If you tell the truth, you don't have to lie. And if DBI is into extra-marital sex (see DBI's comment above), then unless DBI has a consenting spouse, lying and a good memory will be two essential qualities of DBI's nature if they are not already fully developed.

So, Rosso, I think your issue should be with DBI's crack . . .

Don,

You just can't do it can you. You can't give me one assertion that Clinton made that is false.

TP:
I said I was leaving this thread alone - so, except for my response to curious personal comments, I'm movin' on. . .

I went back and read the thread, Don...

Cold cervezas around?

Don Kehoty (ie: Donkey Hotey) just can't stand it that there some people who like Clinton and who aren't upset with him forevermore for his dillydallying in the Oval Office. I, for one, don't care what the man did under the desk, on top of it, or beside it. I'd almost give my right arm, though, to still have him in the Oval Office calling the shots on both foreign and domestic policy. If he was still doing that, we'd not have had almost 3,000 American troops killed in the past couple of years in a war that is questionable as to it's validity and purpose, to say the least.

I just want to say thank you to Tax Payer, Spirit, DBI, rosso, zelda, tina, Roverdon, BIGFAN1, Rasputin, Old Blue Eyes, RickBaber, Jake da Snake and the many, many other liberals who continue to speak up and speak out on this blog. It feels so good to be among friends.

TP:
I said I was leaving this thread alone - so, except for my response to curious personal comments, I'm movin' on. . .--says DK
***********

How convenient

Cold cervezas around?- Posted by: rosso
******
Sounds good to me!

My only regret was I wish Clinton would have reached across and bitch slapped the peckerhead!

BR549,

Wasn't that a phone number on Hee Haw?

Don, I wasn't trying to work in a crack about your mother, I was using it to point out that people often get mad when someone tells a lie about them.

Rove has decided to make everything that has ever gone wrong Bill Clinton's fault. Like all things he does, Rove is spinning the lies very well. But in effect what Chris Wallace was asking Clinton was don't cha feel kinda bad that YOU BILL CLINTON caused the deaths of nearly 3000 people on 9-11 when you were either: A., too chicken, B., too lazy, or C., too busy porking Monica to go after Osama?

Give me a dirty crack about my Mom any day compared to having that kind of blame put on my shoulders. Plus, according to media matters, Clinton's side of the story is the truth. But my point was, no wonder Bill Clinton got mad as a wet hen.

My youthful indiscretions and ability to be or not be faithful to my wife really doesn't matter much since I do not hold public office, am not the boss of anyone and do not receive any money from local, state or Federal governments.

I am a grown man, I know the way adults are, not what they say they are, but what they actually are and do and become. It's asinine to be debating Clinton's personal sex life. It's nothing but a smoke screen put up by the right-wingers who hope to steal our country while we're talking about blowjobs. Blowjobs Do NOT MATTER!

Starting a war in Iraq for oil matters! Torturing prisoners while calling ourselves a Christian nation matters! Our government merging with big business and organized religion matters! Wrecking our economy matters! Piling up debt for our grandchildren matters!

Packing the government with buddies and money men and using it for political payback to the point where people aren't rescued in national emergencies matter! Turning our government into a dictatorship matters!

Blowjobs do not matter.....period! You can ask me if I've cheated on my wife with a smirk on your face and it won't make me mad. Wallace didn't ask Clinton about sex. But if you imply I've ever laid a hand on my wife, smirk or no smirk, I'm coming over the table at you.

Wake up Pryor and Lincoln, you better start channeling Clinton instead of Bush, we're gunning for you.

Pavel,
Same here. You're welcome at the ol' Crackerbox Palace any time. ... we might even put out the cigarettes in anticipation of your arrival.
(oh, shit. have I started something? 8)

OK people. We don't need to be talking about people's mothers with dirty cracks.

Well, Pavel, thanks for putting
me in such good company
but I am mostly more conservative than most of these folks who
post here and tag themselves *conservative.* I often wonder
from their posts if they really
have a concept of what conservatism is. I have posted
this before because I think
Thomas Paine had conservatism pegged quite well:

"The first duty of a patriot
is to protect his country from
its government."

_--T. Paine.

"So you don't like liberals. Fine.

You don't like the people who: fought for or enacted clean air and water standards, worker safety protections, the 40-hour work week, the social security program, the civil rights movement, the equal rights movement, the free speech movement, discrimination protections, the free school lunch program, birth control, rural electrification, organized labor, child-labor laws, the minimum wage, employee healthcare benefits, public assistance, Americans with Disabilities Act, fair housing legislation, the Freedom of Information Act, the Voting Rights Act, food and drug safety regulations, federally subsidized student loans, collective bargaining.."

Jake, I never said I didn't like liberals. I like most of you and several of my friends are liberals, but none of the things you wrote have anything to with the subject at hand. I don't agree with many of the liberal policy initiatives you listed either. From the looks of it, many democrat politicians don't either, at least not when they're campaigning, when they're for tax cuts and gun rights and many other Republican policies.

I especially like the clean air and water things, especially since the air and water aren't any cleaner now than they were when those cleverly named acts were passed.

Regardless, the subject of this thread was Clinton's "indignance" about how "unfair" it was to dare to question what he did or didn't do in regard to terrorism. The Bush administration answers much harsher questions all the time and doesn't whine about it or scream at the questioner. Clinton lied repeatedly in that interview. He said that Republicans criticized him for responding to the embassy bombings. That's not true. Newt Gingrich and the other members of Republican leadership specifically praised him and encouraged him to do more. He told us that Richard Clarke is the expert on terrorism to whom we should listen, but Clarke said that Clinton didn't form a strategy or plan to respond to the bombing of the Cole, as he claimed he did. He also said that Clinton was averse to responding to the terrorists for fear of inciting more violence or incurring collateral damage. He said that what bin Laden said about us pulling out of Somalia didn't matter, but he's an idiot if he believes that. Bin Laden stated in an ABC interview and other places that he realized that we didn't have the stomach to deal with terrorism and that we were a paper tiger, meaning that Clinton emboldened bin Laden. He said that we demanded to leave Somalia. That's not true, either. When I have more time, I'll enlighten you some more.

OR, if you prefer to be enlightened BEFORE DK has time to do so, just listen to Rush Slimeball tomorrow. Everything DK says above is exactly what ol' stained fingers has been yakking on his show for the past few days. That must make it all true.

"The first duty of a patriot
is to protect his country from
its government."

_--T. Paine.

That's convenient. Funny, I didn't hear libs say that when Clinton was president and the dems controlled both houses of congress. I guess y'all are only "patriotic" when Republicans are in office. I'm still trying to figure out how rooting for your country's defeat is patriotic.

Anon, since you are a neo-con, you still confuse patriotism as being loyalty to government rather than loyalty to country. Until you figure this out, you will never be an old line conservative but rather of the new vein who believes in bigger and bigger government, bigger and bigger budget deficits and bigger and bigger national debts while cutting taxes in time of war. You can thank Ronald Reagan and his gaggle for turning the conservative world upside down to where it has no resembalance of conservatism

Pavel.....the feeling is mOOtual!

I told my wife the other day that I have for years been civil and tame when a conservative made their move and would face me down with a more agressive style.

NO MORE!

I have allowed friend and relatives to win arguments for the sake of their feelings or future relations.

NO MORE!

I have sit quietly in a crowded room of co-workers and listened to conservatives...like the anons here....literally do their holier than thou routine...playing on the ignorance of those less informed by using religion to "win" an argument.

NO MORE!

People are dying! Our rights to be and act as individuals are being challenged and lost. We can no longer afford to be civil or politically correct when confronted with a non-truth!

NO MORE!!!

The way the "right" wins is thru changing the subject or using an old straw man argument.

NO MORE!!!!

I am indignant....we are here arguing over the behaviour of a former president and the content of the serious discussion.....

They are doing just as my wife said....discussing Clinton's socks!!!!

Sh!t!

Strange that CHICKENHAWK Anon calls anyone who disagrees with being the Iraqi civil war UNAMERICAN. Where are those WMDs? Our own Generals told the Bush Fascist in their RUSH to war that we would need 3 times as many troops to keep the peace. Now our Generals say the Army is stretched to thin and we need 60000 more troops added to the Army and were still bogged down with no way out. Looks like Vietnam, smellls like Vietnam and it's starting to taste like Vietnam. And the Troops end up being the poor sap sucking pawns.

America learned NOTHING from Vietnam!!!!!!

Strange that CHICKENHAWK Anon calls anyone who disagrees with being the Iraqi civil war UNAMERICAN. Where are those WMDs? Our own Generals told the Bush Fascist in their RUSH to war that we would need 3 times as many troops to keep the peace. Now our Generals say the Army is stretched to thin and we need 60000 more troops added to the Army and were still bogged down with no way out. Looks like Vietnam, smellls like Vietnam and it's starting to taste like Vietnam. And the Troops end up being the poor sap sucking pawns.

America learned NOTHING from Vietnam!!!!!!

Anonymous,

Sorry I was off your topic but I felt that my favorite hobby horse needed another ride: that it is bad to use the terms liberal and conservative as perjoratives. Hence, I strove to define what I strongly feel are the positive contributions of liberals. Thanks for being polite in your disagreement.
I sincerely would like to hear the advancements in legislation that conservatives have made for the American people.

Like most Americans, I am a Heinz 57 mutt with a mixture of several tenets. I don't like knee-jerk liberals or kneel and squeal conservatives; I loathe head-in-the-sand Democrats and head-up-their-butt Republicans; I hate holier-than-thou, do-gooder leftists and sanctimonious, goody two-bit right wingers.
I'm rather uncomfortable around asskissers and asskickers. Either way, some serious puckering up occurs.

And, most unfortunately, politics is defined more by winners and losers than it is by Democrats/Republicans or liberals/conservatives that people would like us to believe in.

When you get the time, I'd appreciate your list for the conservative cause. I believe both sides should have some positives to present to the nation as their accomplishments.

Now Jake da Snake that's my kind of thinking also! Kudo's 2 u!

BTW, to all those Corkeys BBQ lover's out there. THEY STILL SUX!

Clinton has a temper but this interview was not an example of it. The transcript made him seem more indecisive I think. To me the transcript portrayed someone who stammered and hesitated through the interview as opposed to having complete command and control over it as the case was.

ASA'S SURVEYS ARE ONLINE AT HIS WEBPAGE.

DESPITE HIS CLEAR PROMISE THE PRESS TO RELEASE HIS SURVEYS TO ANYONE WHO REQUESTS THEM, HE IS NOW REFUSING.

WHAT A GREAT MAN THIS BEEBE IS.

Jake, It's been four hours and it seems that you will get no answers.
Either the neo-cons are busy googling, trying to find something positive to post, or they had to do homework and go to bed.
LOL

ASA'S SURVEYS ARE ONLINE AT HIS WEBPAGE.

DESPITE BEEBE'S CLEAR PROMISE THE PRESS TO RELEASE HIS SURVEYS TO ANYONE WHO REQUESTS THEM, HE IS NOW REFUSING.

WHAT A GREAT MAN THIS BEEBE IS.

What a great relief it will be to have Mike Beebe take over the Governor's chair this January. Keeping calm and letting Asa self-destruct is the smartest thing Beebe can do and he's doing it.

Na na naa naa na na naa naa hey Asa goodbye a

"Anon, since you are a neo-con, you still confuse patriotism as being loyalty to government rather than loyalty to country. Until you figure this out, you will never be an old line conservative but rather of the new vein who believes in bigger and bigger government, bigger and bigger budget deficits and bigger and bigger national debts while cutting taxes in time of war. You can thank Ronald Reagan and his gaggle for turning the conservative world upside down to where it has no resembalance of conservatism"

Sorry, rasp, I don't think you're a credible source on what's conservative and what's not.

Regardless, Clinton got busted and he embarrassed himself, to boot.

"Strange that CHICKENHAWK Anon calls anyone who disagrees with being the Iraqi civil war UNAMERICAN. Where are those WMDs? Our own Generals told the Bush Fascist in their RUSH to war that we would need 3 times as many troops to keep the peace. Now our Generals say the Army is stretched to thin and we need 60000 more troops added to the Army and were still bogged down with no way out. Looks like Vietnam, smellls like Vietnam and it's starting to taste like Vietnam. And the Troops end up being the poor sap sucking pawns."

Hey, riverdog, f#&$ you. You are the chicken. You are coward and you are aiding and abetting terrorists. Congratulations, you get to come on here every day and give Osama bin Laden a pep talk and tell the troops that their sacrifice is not just worthless, it's evil. That's right, boys, pay no attention to Saving Private Ryan. You're not the heros. You're the nazis and Bush is Hitler. What a worthless piece of s#&$ you are.

You libs mince the words any way you like, but you're not patriotic. It will never be patriotic to root for the defeat of your country.