PDA

View Full Version : Has anyone read the Hillary Clinton book?


Count Alex's Wins
09-13-2005, 08:49 AM
http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/5687/159523004qo.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Mr. Kotter
09-13-2005, 08:50 AM
Now, why the fugg would any rational person do THAT?


:spock:

I suppose there is some humor value involved.... :hmmm:

StcChief
09-13-2005, 08:51 AM
No but would be interested in comparing the book to what I know.

Insider stories during her stint at white house

Mr. Kotter
09-13-2005, 08:51 AM
Nice job, Parker. Heh. :clap:

Count Alex's Wins
09-13-2005, 08:52 AM
Now, why the fugg would any rational person do THAT?


:spock:

I suppose there is some humor value involved.... :hmmm:

It's supposedly anti-Hillary. There's stuff in there about how she refused to even shave her body hair until Clinton told her it would be necessary.

Mr. Kotter
09-13-2005, 08:54 AM
It's supposedly anti-Hillary. There's stuff in there about how she refused to even shave her body hair until Clinton told her it would be necessary.

I know.....I know. I just sick and tired of both sides of whacked out extemists; the Moonbats and real RWNJs (as opposed to the all-inclusive and overly-broad category De nise wants to use) are birds of a feather. And they both creep me out.

Frankie
09-13-2005, 08:54 AM
It's supposedly anti-Hillary. There's stuff in there about how she refused to even shave her body hair until Clinton told her it would be necessary.

The Republican mud-machine is already starting.
:rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
09-13-2005, 08:55 AM
The Republican mud-machine is already starting.
:rolleyes:

Michael Moore and Moveon.org far outdid them in the 2004 election; they do seem intent on evening the score this time. :)

Count Alex's Wins
09-13-2005, 08:56 AM
The Republican mud-machine is already starting.
:rolleyes:

Not according to this review:

If you are partisan to the left (this book is part of the vast right wing consipiracy) or to the right (this book is a hate fest) then this book is not for you.

For the moderate, middle of the road, open-minded voter, this book is, quite simply, a complete compilation of facts and issues about Hillary Clinton which are relevant to her candidacy for President of The United State and the US Senate that, in this world of partisan and exploitable media, you simply will not get via traditional media channels.

I find candidate-bashing books unproductive. This is not one of them. The author has researched and presented his topic with perfect regard for his sources and journalistic reporting. It is a good telling of the facts.

memyselfI
09-13-2005, 08:59 AM
Not according to this review:

If you are partisan to the left (this book is part of the vast right wing consipiracy) or to the right (this book is a hate fest) then this book is not for you.

For the moderate, middle of the road, open-minded voter, this book is, quite simply, a complete compilation of facts and issues about Hillary Clinton which are relevant to her candidacy for President of The United State and the US Senate that, in this world of partisan and exploitable media, you simply will not get via traditional media channels.

I find candidate-bashing books unproductive. This is not one of them. The author has researched and presented his topic with perfect regard for his sources and journalistic reporting. It is a good telling of the facts.

Is this the book that maintains she was raped and thereby had a baby?

Count Alex's Wins
09-13-2005, 09:03 AM
Is this the book that maintains she was raped and thereby had a baby?

Yes, by Bill.

"Klein also claims that Chelsea was the result of a planned rape by Bill during a Bahamas trip that left a lot of broken furniture for viewing by the anonymous source the next morning. Further, Bill didn't realize the outcome until two months later when he read about Hillary's pregnancy in the Arkansas Gazette. (Wonder what Chelsea's reaction to that story is!)"

jspchief
09-13-2005, 09:04 AM
Does anyone think that Hollywood is producing the new TV show about Geena Davis becoming President in an effort to desensitize the public to the idea of a woman president?

NewChief
09-13-2005, 09:04 AM
Not according to this review:

If you are partisan to the left (this book is part of the vast right wing consipiracy) or to the right (this book is a hate fest) then this book is not for you.

For the moderate, middle of the road, open-minded voter, this book is, quite simply, a complete compilation of facts and issues about Hillary Clinton which are relevant to her candidacy for President of The United State and the US Senate that, in this world of partisan and exploitable media, you simply will not get via traditional media channels.

I find candidate-bashing books unproductive. This is not one of them. The author has researched and presented his topic with perfect regard for his sources and journalistic reporting. It is a good telling of the facts.

Where's that review from, because it's a joke? Just about everyone has acknowledged that this book is little more than tabloid sleaze.

Count Alex's Wins
09-13-2005, 09:07 AM
Does anyone think that Hollywood is producing the new TV show about Geena Davis becoming President in an effort to desensitize the public to the idea of a woman president?

Yes, with Donald Sutherland cast as the EVIL REPUBLICAN! ROFL

Count Alex's Wins
09-13-2005, 09:07 AM
Where's that review from, because it's a joke? Just about everyone has acknowledged that this book is little more than tabloid sleaze.

Amazon.com. The book has over 400 reviews. ROFL

memyselfI
09-13-2005, 09:08 AM
Yes, by Bill.

"Klein also claims that Chelsea was the result of a planned rape by Bill during a Bahamas trip that left a lot of broken furniture for viewing by the anonymous source the next morning. Further, Bill didn't realize the outcome until two months later when he read about Hillary's pregnancy in the Arkansas Gazette. (Wonder what Chelsea's reaction to that story is!)"

And he was able to document this by?

Count Alex's Wins
09-13-2005, 09:09 AM
IN SPITE OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA'S EFFORT TO DISSUADE PEOPLE FROM READING THIS BOOK, THOUSANDS ARE BUYING, READING AND BELIEVING. THANK YOU, MR. KLEIN, FOR THE TRUTH.

ROFL

memyselfI
09-13-2005, 09:09 AM
Amazon.com. The book has over 400 reviews. ROFL

And you would admit the preponderance would be people wanting to believe what the book says and therefore say it's a good book, yes?

Count Alex's Wins
09-13-2005, 09:09 AM
And he was able to document this by?

Beats the hell out of me, I haven't read it. I am picking it up this afternoon, though.

Count Alex's Wins
09-13-2005, 09:10 AM
And you would admit the preponderance would be people wanting to believe what the book says and therefore say it's a good book, yes?

I don't know, I just started reading the reviews. So far there seems to be a fair amount of bashing and praising.

NewChief
09-13-2005, 09:10 AM
Amazon.com. The book has over 400 reviews. ROFL

Here's an excerpt from another amazon review:

The more sleazy and therefore profitable allegations are that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian, and that Chelsea was conceived after Bill raped her. Sean Hannity (not exactly a beacon of liberal discourse) took exception to these claims with Ed Klein in the following transcript.
HANNITY: It's only one source.

KLEIN: It's one source who I checked out very carefully.

HANNITY: Is one anonymous source enough, then, to go to print with something like that?

KLEIN: Well, you know, I've been at this for 40-some-odd years, Sean. And I've dealt with anonymous sources all my life.

HANNITY: But one source? Were you able to corroborate the source?

KLEIN: Of course. I wouldn't go to print --

HANNITY: So, you had two sources?

KLEIN: I had -- sometimes I had several sources.

HANNITY: But in the case of this rape story --

KLEIN: Of course I did, yes.

HANNITY: In the case of the story of how Chelsea was conceived, you had one source in the book.

KLEIN: Yes.

Asked by Hannity to justify the gay-baiting innuendo in his book, Klein once again contradicted himself. In the radio interview, Klein stated that he does not "accuse her of being a lesbian in this book":

KLEIN: First of all, let me make clear, I do not accuse her of being a lesbian in this book, as you know.

HANNITY: But it comes up on seven different occasions.

KLEIN: Right. It comes up because it is relevant to understanding the basis of her political point of view. It is a political question.

On Hannity and Colmes, however, Klein returned once again to rumor and innuendo, admitting that he was in fact questioning "her sexuality," and stating that Hillary Clinton has "given all kinds of signals that her sexuality is in question." But he failed to offer any evidence to back up the innuendo.

HANNITY: You question her sexuality, though, four times in the book, but she's a married woman with a child. I mean, do you not consider --

KLEIN: I'm not the first person who has questioned her sexuality.

HANNITY: I know. But without -- there's no evidence of any such thing. Is it fair? Do you consider her daughter in all of this? Should we consider her daughter?

KLEIN: The rumors of Hillary's sexuality started in Arkansas 30-some-odd years ago.

HANNITY: But is it fair? I don't want to defend Hillary, I have so many political disagreements. Shouldn't we keep it on the political?

KLEIN: Hillary was asked by Bill Clinton's campaign manager in 1974, "Hillary, please come out and deny these rumors. They're hurting Bill Clinton."

HANNITY: When did you stop beating your child?

KLEIN: And she said, "I'm not going to do it."

HANNITY: But why does she -- why should she have to? If she's a married woman with a child.

KLEIN: Because she's given all kinds of signals that her sexuality is in question.
Here are some other claims in Mr. Klein's book which have been discredited or are easily referencable as simply not being true long before Mr. Klein's book went to print.

Frankie
09-13-2005, 09:16 AM
Yes, by Bill.

"Klein also claims that Chelsea was the result of a planned rape by Bill during a Bahamas trip that left a lot of broken furniture for viewing by the anonymous source the next morning. Further, Bill didn't realize the outcome until two months later when he read about Hillary's pregnancy in the Arkansas Gazette. (Wonder what Chelsea's reaction to that story is!)"
Ah, the good old convenient "anonymous source!"
ROFL

Pitt Gorilla
09-13-2005, 10:45 AM
Does anyone think that Hollywood is producing the new TV show about Geena Davis becoming President in an effort to desensitize the public to the idea of a woman president?Now THERE is a conspiracy! (Geena Davis used to be HOT)

Warrior5
09-13-2005, 10:47 AM
Whether you're Rep or Dem, what does an alleged rape really have to do with Hillary's aspirations to become President?

BIG_DADDY
09-13-2005, 11:08 AM
I just bought it and will read it over my vacation in October.

Area 51
09-13-2005, 11:18 AM
Does anyone think that Hollywood is producing the new TV show about Geena Davis becoming President in an effort to desensitize the public to the idea of a woman president?

Geena as president? I'm OK with that. Hillary no f*n way!!

Boyceofsummer
09-13-2005, 11:19 AM
I just bought it and will read it over my vacation in October.

You didn't vote for Bush. You don't like Bush. Yada, yada, yada. You RWNJ's are obsessed with the Clinton's. It irks you to no-end that America was prosperous and at peace during the Clinton's two term on office.

Area 51
09-13-2005, 11:19 AM
No but would be interested in comparing the book to what I know.

Insider stories during her stint at white house

I donno, maybe someone could use it as a substitute in the outhouse.

StcChief
09-13-2005, 11:53 AM
You didn't vote for Bush. You don't like Bush. Yada, yada, yada. You RWNJ's are obsessed with the Clinton's. It irks you to no-end that America was prosperous and at peace during the Clinton's two term on office.

We were at war. Clinton refused to do anything about it.

Check 93 attack on WTC that failed.

Embassy bombings etc.

Frankie
09-13-2005, 02:24 PM
We were at war. Clinton refused to do anything about it.

Check 93 attack on WTC that failed.

Embassy bombings etc.

ROFL ROFL

"Failed" is the operative word, and your own answer. Just like the millenium attempts. The destruction of the towers under Bush's watch was, also, Clinton's fault! :shake: Pathetic. I don't know what it takes for you Bushies to admit that this emperor is wearing no clothes.

Duck Dog
09-13-2005, 02:43 PM
ROFL ROFL

"Failed" is the operative word, and your own answer. Just like the millenium attempts. The destruction of the towers under Bush's watch was, also, Clinton's fault! :shake: Pathetic. I don't know what it takes for you Bushies to admit that this emperor is wearing no clothes.


While soldiers were being killed by terrorists at Kobal Towers and the USS Cole and while terrorists were bombing the WTC the first time, Clinton was killing woman and children in Waco and stormtrooping the house of a ten year old Cuban boy.

Pathetic is right.

Frankie
09-13-2005, 02:47 PM
While soldiers were being killed by terrorists at Kobal Towers and the USS Cole and while terrorists were bombing the WTC the first time, Clinton was killing woman and children in Waco and stormtrooping the house of a ten year old Cuban boy.

Pathetic is right.

The same ol yada yada.
:rolleyes:

Boyceofsummer
09-13-2005, 02:48 PM
While soldiers were being killed by terrorists at Kobal Towers and the USS Cole and while terrorists were bombing the WTC the first time, Clinton was killing woman and children in Waco and stormtrooping the house of a ten year old Cuban boy.

Pathetic is right.

Kosovo too. But, he went Dwight Yoakam on U.S. and got the **** out!

Duck Dog
09-13-2005, 02:58 PM
Typical responses.

Area 51
09-13-2005, 03:18 PM
ROFL ROFL

"Failed" is the operative word, and your own answer. Just like the millenium attempts. The destruction of the towers under Bush's watch was, also, Clinton's fault! :shake: Pathetic. I don't know what it takes for you Bushies to admit that this emperor is wearing no clothes.

I'm not sure where your history classes were taught, but you seem to be laboring under a misconception.

When was it determined that the attacks of 9/11 were something that could be predicted? Up to that time not a single person on the face of the earth hijacked an airliner and used it as a cruise missile/kinetic energy weapon.

You seem to think that President Bush is required to know 100% of everything that is happening. The people that are in their right minds know that the amount of information pushed to the President is gleaned and cleaned to give the best information available. I would doubt that you could understand and retain 1/8th of what any President listens to on a daily basis.

It is amazing how many people think that the President has to know all and have 100% control over every aspect of daily occurances. The normal person cannot keep tabs on their own life let alone be responsible for their extended family. Just cannot happen.

Amnorix
09-13-2005, 03:42 PM
It's supposedly anti-Hillary. There's stuff in there about how she refused to even shave her body hair until Clinton told her it would be necessary.

And you call it "supposedly" anti-Hillary... :eek: Here's a hint -- it is.

Amnorix
09-13-2005, 03:43 PM
Yes, by Bill.

"Klein also claims that Chelsea was the result of a planned rape by Bill during a Bahamas trip that left a lot of broken furniture for viewing by the anonymous source the next morning. Further, Bill didn't realize the outcome until two months later when he read about Hillary's pregnancy in the Arkansas Gazette. (Wonder what Chelsea's reaction to that story is!)"

And you think this book has some pretense of balance?

Count Alex's Wins
09-13-2005, 04:36 PM
And you think this book has some pretense of balance?

I don't really have an opinion on it yet. It's a book about Hillary Clinton. I would expect it to be chock full of stuff about her.

Eye Patch
09-13-2005, 04:48 PM
When Kitty Kelly did her book that trashed the Bushies also with anonymous persons and just before an election… she was given 3 days of coverage with perky Katie Couric of the today show. In fact she did a host of talk time shows. Larry King, Hardball, CNN, etc.

But when Klein does his book all of his scheduled TV interviews were suddenly cancelled. I think the Hannity & Colmes was the only TV show that covered his book. The rest took a pass because they received their marching orders from you know who.

penchief
09-13-2005, 06:44 PM
Here's an excerpt from another amazon review:

The more sleazy and therefore profitable allegations are that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian, and that Chelsea was conceived after Bill raped her. Sean Hannity (not exactly a beacon of liberal discourse) took exception to these claims with Ed Klein in the following transcript.
HANNITY: It's only one source.

KLEIN: It's one source who I checked out very carefully.

HANNITY: Is one anonymous source enough, then, to go to print with something like that?

KLEIN: Well, you know, I've been at this for 40-some-odd years, Sean. And I've dealt with anonymous sources all my life.

HANNITY: But one source? Were you able to corroborate the source?

KLEIN: Of course. I wouldn't go to print --

HANNITY: So, you had two sources?

KLEIN: I had -- sometimes I had several sources.

HANNITY: But in the case of this rape story --

KLEIN: Of course I did, yes.

HANNITY: In the case of the story of how Chelsea was conceived, you had one source in the book.

KLEIN: Yes.

Asked by Hannity to justify the gay-baiting innuendo in his book, Klein once again contradicted himself. In the radio interview, Klein stated that he does not "accuse her of being a lesbian in this book":

KLEIN: First of all, let me make clear, I do not accuse her of being a lesbian in this book, as you know.

HANNITY: But it comes up on seven different occasions.

KLEIN: Right. It comes up because it is relevant to understanding the basis of her political point of view. It is a political question.

On Hannity and Colmes, however, Klein returned once again to rumor and innuendo, admitting that he was in fact questioning "her sexuality," and stating that Hillary Clinton has "given all kinds of signals that her sexuality is in question." But he failed to offer any evidence to back up the innuendo.

HANNITY: You question her sexuality, though, four times in the book, but she's a married woman with a child. I mean, do you not consider --

KLEIN: I'm not the first person who has questioned her sexuality.

HANNITY: I know. But without -- there's no evidence of any such thing. Is it fair? Do you consider her daughter in all of this? Should we consider her daughter?

KLEIN: The rumors of Hillary's sexuality started in Arkansas 30-some-odd years ago.

HANNITY: But is it fair? I don't want to defend Hillary, I have so many political disagreements. Shouldn't we keep it on the political?

KLEIN: Hillary was asked by Bill Clinton's campaign manager in 1974, "Hillary, please come out and deny these rumors. They're hurting Bill Clinton."

HANNITY: When did you stop beating your child?

KLEIN: And she said, "I'm not going to do it."

HANNITY: But why does she -- why should she have to? If she's a married woman with a child.

KLEIN: Because she's given all kinds of signals that her sexuality is in question.
Here are some other claims in Mr. Klein's book which have been discredited or are easily referencable as simply not being true long before Mr. Klein's book went to print.

Why the hell can't they just leave Chelsea out of this shit. They couldn't do it when she was a kid and they still can't resist. What a bunch of sleazes. Forget politics. This is so sleazy it makes partisan politics look like Sunday School.

Reminds me of when Rush talked about the White House Dog on his show and flashed a picture of a then pre-teenage Chelsea. Some people have no class.

Frankie
09-13-2005, 06:56 PM
Why the hell can't they just leave Chelsea out of this shit. They couldn't do it when she was a kid and they still can't resist. What a bunch of sleazes. Forget politics. This is so sleazy it makes partisan politics look like Sunday School.

Reminds me of when Rush talked about the White House Dog on his show and flashed a picture of a then pre-teenage Chelsea. Some people have no class.

This is the same sleaze machine that called Senator McCane's adobted Asian child his out-of-wedlock black child when he was running against their candidate in the 2000 primaries. You have high expectations of them.

Area 51
09-14-2005, 09:38 AM
By looking at the cover I'd guess that it isn't nice. Of course that could be the normal way she looks!!

The book would still see it's best use as a tp substitute in someone's outhouse.

Mr. Kotter
09-14-2005, 10:09 AM
When Kitty Kelly did her book that trashed the Bushies also with anonymous persons and just before an election… she was given 3 days of coverage with perky Katie Couric of the today show. In fact she did a host of talk time shows. Larry King, Hardball, CNN, etc.

But when Klein does his book all of his scheduled TV interviews were suddenly cancelled. I think the Hannity & Colmes was the only TV show that covered his book. The rest took a pass because they received their marching orders from you know who.

That's a very interesting CONTRAST, isn't it? :hmmm:

Adept Havelock
09-14-2005, 10:31 AM
Up to that time not a single person on the face of the earth hijacked an airliner and used it as a cruise missile/kinetic energy weapon.



9/11 is not the fault of any single individual. It can not be hung solely on either the Bush or Clinton administrations as much as some Right/Left partisans wish to. It was the end result of trends years in the making. A collective failure.

That said, I have to respectfully disagree with the idea behind statement you posted above. It had been considered by numerous think tanks, and that very scenario was also predicted (though with only one Wash. D.C. target) in Tom Clancy's fictional Debt of Honor (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0399139540/qid=1126711646/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-1648904-7475866?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), published in 1994. The main difference being the fictional attack was used to decapitate the Govt.

However, as you said, no one had actually done it.
I simply don't buy the "no one could have seen it coming" meme.

Radar Chief
09-14-2005, 10:57 AM
What’s the subject matter again?
Oh yea, THAT’S why I don’t give a chit to read this book.

Mr. Kotter
09-14-2005, 11:17 AM
9/11 is not the fault of any single individual. It can not be hung solely on either the Bush or Clinton administrations as much as some Right/Left partisans wish to. It was the end result of trends years in the making. A collective failure.

That said, I have to respectfully disagree with the idea behind statement you posted above. It had been considered by numerous think tanks, and that very scenario was also predicted (though with only one Wash. D.C. target) in Tom Clancy's fictional Debt of Honor (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0399139540/qid=1126711646/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-1648904-7475866?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), published in 1994. The main difference being the fictional attack was used to decapitate the Govt.

However, as you said, no one had actually done it.
I simply don't buy the "no one could have seen it coming" meme.

It's like Nostardamus though; make enough "predicitions," and some are bound to come true.

What do they say down South? "Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile."

Adept Havelock
09-14-2005, 11:39 AM
You have a point there MK. That said, I still believe there is a fair shade of difference between a mystic making vague statements in poetic form several hundered years ago, and an informed, educated novelist forcasting the specific use of a manned commerical aircraft as a Kamikaze in a massive terorist attack.

JMO.

Area 51
09-14-2005, 11:53 AM
9/11 is not the fault of any single individual. It can not be hung solely on either the Bush or Clinton administrations as much as some Right/Left partisans wish to. It was the end result of trends years in the making. A collective failure.

That said, I have to respectfully disagree with the idea behind statement you posted above. It had been considered by numerous think tanks, and that very scenario was also predicted (though with only one Wash. D.C. target) in Tom Clancy's fictional Debt of Honor (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0399139540/qid=1126711646/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-1648904-7475866?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), published in 1994. The main difference being the fictional attack was used to decapitate the Govt.

However, as you said, no one had actually done it.
I simply don't buy the "no one could have seen it coming" meme.

What would have been your response prior to 9/11 if you heard that someone was going to hijack planes on a certain date? The furthest thought from your mind would have been to use them as weapons, you are not alone there.

The trend you are speaking of started when the U.S. was being systematically attacked during the Clinton administration. I'm sure you are aware of the attacks that took American lives, here and abroad. I don't think I would call it a collective failure, it was a failure that was started by non-action after an attack. What would have happened if the Clinton administration had of pursued more than just the one guy that was arrested for the 1993 WTC bombing? There was no extended investigation into the organization that began attacking the U.S. at that point. Action then might have stopped the attack in 2001.

The terrorists wanted to decapitate the government with the attacks on 9/11. There are theories about what the purpose of the delay in the taking of Flight 93, one of which was that the timing of the flight was to crash it into AF1 as it returned to DC from Florida with the President onboard. They did not count on the secret service diverting the President away from DC. Their goal was to wreck the economic center of the country as well as kill the president. Another line of thought was that F93 was going to crash into the White House, again killing the President. The last scenario I heard about was that they would crash into the Capitol Building itself as a symbolic destruction of the Government.

It can be argued in any manner you'd like to argue. My belief is that inaction from Clintons admin was the beginning of the end. Bush didn't have time to actually appreciate all of the data he was getting on a daily basis and had to trust his staff, just like any other president would have. If Gore had of won that election he would have been in the exact same place as Bush on 9/11. The difference being that I feel he would have not reacted in the same manner. We would still be cowering in the corner and waiting for yet another attack.

Adept Havelock
09-14-2005, 12:09 PM
I notice you put the beginning during Clinton's administration.

I agree, Clinton Admin. dropped the ball responding to some attacks, and preventing others. Blocking the Millinium plot is a plus for them, to go with the minuses.

A case could also be made that Reagans pullout of Marines after the Beruit Barracks Bombing of 1982 might also have emboldened terror-oriented planners.

As would the response to the Iran Hostage Crisis under Carter.

Or the beginning of the hijacking/terror trend in the 70's following the Munich Massacre. Johnson/Nixon/Ford

It's not one political parties fault, as I said before. Though many wish it was.

Area 51
09-14-2005, 03:30 PM
I notice you put the beginning during Clinton's administration.

I agree, Clinton Admin. dropped the ball responding to some attacks, and preventing others. Blocking the Millinium plot is a plus for them, to go with the minuses.

A case could also be made that Reagans pullout of Marines after the Beruit Barracks Bombing of 1982 might also have emboldened terror-oriented planners.

As would the response to the Iran Hostage Crisis under Carter.

Or the beginning of the hijacking/terror trend in the 70's following the Munich Massacre. Johnson/Nixon/Ford

It's not one political parties fault, as I said before. Though many wish it was.

The reason I went to Clinton as the beginning was that was the first planned attack by OBL (according to intelligence reports I've been able to see). There is a guy in the DC area that goes by Diceman that digs out alot of information using the freedom of information act. He has briefed many Army and other military commands with the information he has assembled.

The other attacks were bad but not associated directly as the ones during Clinton's reign. And, again, I place his inaction as one of the prime reasons that 9/11 was as deadly as it was. My opinion, love it or not.

Amnorix
09-14-2005, 04:20 PM
I choose "not".

Extended operations to kill Osama Bin Laden and/or wipe out his network (which have hardly been successful POST-9/11) would not have been supported/mandated/funded by the Congress or the American public.

To lay this at the feet of Clinton, or any other single person or President, is just flat silly.

Area 51
09-14-2005, 04:46 PM
I choose "not".

Extended operations to kill Osama Bin Laden and/or wipe out his network (which have hardly been successful POST-9/11) would not have been supported/mandated/funded by the Congress or the American public.

To lay this at the feet of Clinton, or any other single person or President, is just flat silly.

So you endorse a president that does nothing when the country is attacked?

Who said anything about killing OBL? INVESTIGATE INVESTIGATE INVESTIGATE!

Warrior5
09-16-2005, 08:45 PM
I'll tell you the real person responsible for the terrorist attacks...


















the terrorists.

go bowe
09-17-2005, 02:03 AM
I'll tell you the real person responsible for the terrorist attacks...


















the terrorists.who let you in here?

you're not supposed to make sense like that...

how can people get all pissed off if you say things like that?

give 'em some meat, something they can chew on...

or not... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Baby Lee
09-17-2005, 07:09 AM
We were at war. Clinton refused to do anything about it.

Check 93 attack on WTC that failed.

Embassy bombings etc.
ROFL ROFL

"Failed" is the operative word, and your own answer. Just like the millenium attempts. The destruction of the towers under Bush's watch was, also, Clinton's fault! :shake: Pathetic. I don't know what it takes for you Bushies to admit that this emperor is wearing no clothes.
The '93 attempt failed to actually bring down the WTC. It didn't fail to happen.
If some wacko manages to get through and stick a gun to the president's head, but the gun jams. You don't congratulate the Secret Service on a job well done.

Baby Lee
09-17-2005, 07:25 AM
Asked by Hannity to justify the gay-baiting innuendo in his book, Klein once again contradicted himself. In the radio interview, Klein stated that he does not "accuse her of being a lesbian in this book":

KLEIN: First of all, let me make clear, I do not accuse her of being a lesbian in this book, as you know.

HANNITY: But it comes up on seven different occasions.

KLEIN: Right. It comes up because it is relevant to understanding the basis of her political point of view. It is a political question.

On Hannity and Colmes, however, Klein returned once again to rumor and innuendo, admitting that he was in fact questioning "her sexuality," and stating that Hillary Clinton has "given all kinds of signals that her sexuality is in question." But he failed to offer any evidence to back up the innuendo.

HANNITY: You question her sexuality, though, four times in the book, but she's a married woman with a child. I mean, do you not consider --

KLEIN: I'm not the first person who has questioned her sexuality.

I have no plans to read this book, and offer no support for it, but I would hope on this particular point people are smart enough to realize the distinction between calling her a lesbian and questioning her sexuality.
Not saying either is tasteful or grounded in fact in this particular instance, but in general, there is a distinction.