Hillary Clinton

Where's Hillary?

And by doing so, that is exactly what you will get No-Change!.
Voting for Nader gave us Bush. Gore would have certainly been a change compared to Bush. With Gore as President, we might have actually stopped 9/11 from happening in the first place.

You cannot speculate that!

Utter bollocks and speculation.

Clinton NEVER would have become president had Perot not run in 1992. Fact.

Considering the amount of info coming out that Bush brushed off prior to 9/11, yes, I most certainly can speculate about it.

When Bush was told that the USS Cole bombing was an Al Qaeda operation, Bush didn't do anything about it claiming that it had happened on Clinton's watch. Gore would have done something and the intel people would be on high alert for any retribution. They would have actually put 2 and 2 together.

With regards to what eurovol stated above, it is undoubtedly true. What destroyed his previous bid in 2000 was South Carolina. He'd won in New Hampshire and if he'd won in SC he'd have been unstoppable against Bush. However, Bush's team mobilised the Southern religious right. Dirty campaigning then followed with claims that his Vietnam imprisonment had made him mad, and that he'd fathered an illegitimate black child (adopted Bangladeshi son in reality). McCain lashed out at the social conservatives deriding them for intolorance, and he ultimately lost. Bush was ushered into office beholden to the religious conservatives. Even when Bush leaves in 2008 this will still hold true. Therefore McCain will have difficulties wooing his own party and his chances of winning the nomination will be lost without him suring the Republican party's conservative base.

But has he gone to far?

He backed South Dakota's recent drafting of a law virtually banning abortion.
He supported Bush's conservative nominations for the Supreme Court.
He favours, like Bush, teaching creationist 'Intelligent Design' theory alongside evolution in schools.
But worse, met with Rev. Jerry Falwell (leading conservative figure in the US) who expounds that Jews won't go to heaven unless they accept Christ ...

Bush didn't do anything about? Hahahahahahahahaha! Euro...The guy who planned the Cole op was caught along with 26 others in Yemen after the War on Terror started. It was Clinton who didn't do anything! Gore is a loser! He couldn't even beat the "idiot president" Bush in an election. How is he gonna beat Al Qaeda?

Ok, I have a stupid question- Is McCain seriously being considered for the Republican candidate? Is there anyone else that could run for the Republicans? Is Giuliani considering it? I think eurovol said it earlier- I don't think McCain has the same appeal to Republicans that he used to. Then again, I haven't been in the States for awhile, so I don't know what the feeling is at home.

Well thats a fairly mainstream christian belief, im sure according to Judaism Christians wont go to heaven either.

Gore didn't even win his home State of Tennessee in 2000! Hahahahahahah! Gore, what a loser.

True. My ommission, McCain had in his previous life labelled Rev. Falwell and 'agent of intolerance.' Therefore, to now put their disagreements publically behind them means he's in all probability gone over to the Dark Side.

According to Christianity, there are a lot of Christians who won't get to heaven either. So, REPENT!

As a private American citizen, Ijaz negotiated Sudan's counterterrorism offer to the Clinton administration in April 1997 and proposed the framework for a ceasefire of hostilities between Indian security forces and Kashmiri separatists in the disputed Kashmir region in August 2000.

from Wiki

QUOTE

n July 2000, just three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer USS Cole in Yemen, Ijaz "brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies - an ally whose name I am not free to divulge - approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.�

This offer would have brought bin Laden to that Arab country and eventually to the U.S. All the proposal required of Clinton was that he make a state visit to request extradition.

"But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family - Clintonian diplomacy at its best.�

Article

I do NOT blame Clinton because of 9/11. Nor do I blame Bush. I blame bin Laden.

Amen.

Careful BB, I'm not plugging Bush on this one.

The right is full of ignorant morans. How do you argue with "morans" like this? Seriously, you tell them the truth and they just don't get it.

1) Clinton fires missiles at Al Qaeda for the Embassy bombings in Africa.
2) Republicans say he is diverting attention away from the serious issue of lying about a blow job.
3) The report of the Cole incident wasn't completed until Bush took office and he was given it in the spring of 2001.
4) He did nothing about it and is directly quoted as saying that "that incident happened on Clinton's watch".
5) Had he done something about it, 9/11 may not have happened.

Eurovol, can we agree that both Clinton & Bush f'ed up on this?

Wiki? Some guy that claims things and Wiki? Hey, I got a guy that will sell you a story of Iraq possessing WMDs and he sold it to the Italians who sold it to Bush. The French didn't buy it and they were right.

The buck stops at the Oval Office and therefore, I do blame Bush. Let me see:

Who would have thought that terrorists would hijack plans and fly them into buildings? Uh, the report sitting on Bush's desk!

Who would have thought that the levees would break? Uh, the report sitting on Bush's desk.

Who would have thought that there would be an insurgency after invading Irag? Uh, the report sitting on Bush's desk.

Fooled you once, can't get fooled again.

�The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening."
--Ijaz

Are you claiming that the article and Ijaz are fakes? Don't throw up a smoke-screen about Bush and company's WMDs. Argue the point.

You may want to try and dismiss Mansoor Ijaz, but his characture stands for what it is. He was appointed by Clinton, he writes a lot, is in the public eye and has been interviewed on many TV and press reports.

9/11 was a failure of government to protect it's people. A "failure of imagination." If you were to see beyond the prisim of hating Bush (which traps so many here at TT, you're not alone) you will see that there was a systematic failure of the US government. Maybe then, you'd accep Ijaz for who he is, a Democrat with crudentials you should be happy with:

$20,000 in the 1994 election cycle to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign
$30,500 in the 1996 election cycle to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign, John Kerry, Bill Clinton and the Democratic National Committee
$15,000 in the 1998 election cycle to the Democratiuc Senatorial Campaign
$8,000 in the 2000 election cycle to the Democratic Committee of New York, Tom Carper, Tim Johnson, Mel Carnahan, Charles S. Robb and Hilliary Rodham Clinton.[13]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mansoor_Ijaz

Snopes on the liars saying Clinton didn't do anything.

And since you like Wiki so much:OBL


Oooh, oooh, that would be Reagan and Bush I Administrations. So, to sum it up:
1) Reagan created OBL and Al Qaeda
2) Bush I continued funding it
3) Clinton was castigated by the Republicans for trying to destroy it.
4) Bush II ignored it until it was too late.

Damn!

This statement is what is wrong with the idea of the election process. You should vote for the best candidate. Don't change your vote because enough people don't believe in another candidate. I voted for Nader the last two elections and I voted in Florida, a swing state. Gore was not the right candidate and Kerry was definitely not. i would not give them my vote, because I vote for who I want in the office and not who I do not want. If the democratic party ever choose a worthy candidate, I might vote for them. But don't blame me and people who voted like me for you backing a losing horse.

Rangers!

Celtic!

Rangers!

Celtic!

Rangers!

Celtic!

Rangers!

Celtic!

Which candidate supports the legalisation of the Holy Ganja?

I agree with brokenm regarding voting strategy. Particularly when you have a 2 party system where the 2 partys are the same.

If voting for a 3rd party seems like its giving one of the 2 major parties a vote, then thats ok, cos it must have been the other major party that drove the voter to consider the third party anyway. If the democrat vote is being split by the greens then shame on the democrats for driving those voters to that decision!

@Timmeh, same as in NZ, the greens hint towards decriminalising weed (heh probably resulting in the same kind of mockery of decriminalization we see in germany i.e. still illegal but the pigs dont care about small amounts which is the status quo anyway), but only the libertarians are coming right out for complete legalization, tax free too. (Friggen Nandor doesnt even have the balls to push for that)

Well said above BrokenM also eurovol, if it wasn't for Perot you wouldn't have had the then no name Clinton. You wouldn't take that back now would you?

Oh, decisions, decisions. Which one should I read?

- Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States

- My Pet Goat

- Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States

- My Pet Goat

- Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States

- My Pet Goat

- Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States

- My Pet Goat

I think that was the last Canadian guy but Im not sure.

I suppose the tough decision to vote either Republican or Democrat is like standin' on a rotting beam between two tanks containing piranhas and crocodiles. Which one is best?

I do blame those that voted for Nader in 2000. We got Bush because of it.
On the local level, by all means go for the candidate that best represents you, but the President represents the entire Nation and the majority are either Republican or Democrats. It is for some the lesser of two evils, but the nation and your fellow man deserves better than to be stuck with Bush (who by the way did not win in 2000). Lets compare the two today: Gore is gaining in respect and Nader is looking like he is becoming two sandwhiches shy of a picnic.

My Pet Goat. No question. Man! Have you seen the illustrative work? Masterpiece!

All that means is that the democrats are driving their voters to consider third parties while the republicans arent to the same extent surprisingly enough. Who should you be blaming again? Hard to believe that after Bushs first term, it was the democrats that were so dissilusioned with their own party that they voted for nader. Hard to believe until you consider the democrats utter lack of a platform at least.

Exactly and that is why in 2000, the Nader voters had a clue what could happen and still didn't give a shit about whether Bush or Gore was more like them. Get a clue! Until a third party is established on the ground level, don't gamble the Nation's future on the likes of an also ran.

Clinton had a huge name (thanks to Gennifer Flowers ) and Perot may have helped get him elected, but you should know that Perot siphoned off a lot of indepent voters that normally vote democratic as well. The so called yellow dog Democrats went fairly big for Perot too.

So if I gave you three choices: eating ass, eating ass with syrup or eating ice cream. You would choose syrup? Because it is better than ass alone?

The only people I personally know who voted third party were my "republican or die" relatives who couldn't bring themselves to vote for a democrat (not matter what) since to them all democrats are (insert slander of choice here) but instead voted third party. Go figure.

You are also forgetting that people also want to increase the presence of a third party and one way to do that is to have over 5% of the popular vote allowing for matching funds. So until you make it a level playing field, quit complaining when you choose your candidate poorly.

Eliminate the parties and free the weed.

No, it is not hard to believe the apathy and selfishness of people. No, not at all.
By they way, do you want a link to the Democratic Party platform or should I mail you a hard copy?

Depends on whose ass we are talking about here!


That is what I am hearing about 2006 too. The conservatives are so fed up with the GOP that they may not vote at all, but they refuse to ever vote for a Democrat. Now tell me who are the total dicks in this scenario and bring back that ass question.


I would love to see a third party, but that is no way to do it. Perot spent more than any matching funds would have given him. Get local first! The internet allows the organizing and building up of a third party. Don't try to do it from the top down.

I will vote for that!

@eurovol, out of curiousity do you simply believe that everything is the fault of the republicans and your fellow americans who if they did not vote for the democratic candidate, regardless of who it was, is either lazy, stupid or selfish?

ps: the only nader voters I know were independents or democrats. I guess the republicans I know are true die hards or wouldnt admit it. either could very well be true

pps: goat, crocodiles, ass straight up.

@BM: 5% represent

@Eurovol

You should read, "The Making of the President:1960" by Theodore White (if you haven't already). This book describes in detail the process from the primaries and caucuses to the final election. While reading this book , you realize that the people who choose who runs on the parties ticket are not at all chosen by the people, but by major power brokers. I think I lent it to Topsy, but anyone who wants to know about the hypocrisy of both politcal parties should read this book.

You know Jebus is loving you more right now.

Deary me Eurovol, you have completely ignored the issue of Mansoor Ijaz's - more attempts at smoke screens (#1).

1) I never said Clinton didn't do anything, you put those words into my mouth.
2) Snopes, wow what an authoriy on Clinton!?!
3) Too bad that snopes link makes no mention of the Sudan offer of extradion as negotiated by Mansoor Ijaz. What was you point for providing it? Smoke screens?


Nonsense, funding for the Afghanis started under the Carter Administration. Please, get your facts straight. Cart -> horse.

On July 3, 1979, US President Jimmy Carter signed a directive authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the revolutionary regime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Invasion_of_Afghanistan

Even if one were to accept your assuptions (or dis-information), it still doesn't address the offer negotiated by Mansoor Ijaz to have OBL eventually extradited to the US by Sudan. This is smoke screen #2.

This small exchange has only re-inforced my inclanation to vote for a 3rd party this next election. Democrats and Republicans are spin doctors and I can't believe that you haven't realised this yet.

I'm going back to work!

The strategy of the Republicans that came out of the Nixon administration and was first witnessed in the Willy Horton ad against Dukakis is what I am against. I would love to have a real issues debate, but I don't think that is what they really want. Especially not with this current leader. I think that anybody who couldn't see the difference between Gore and Bush should not have been voting in the first place and as bad as Kerry is, he isn't as bad as Bush.

I don't care who you voted for between Clinton and Dole, Clinton and Bush I and Perot, Bush I and Dukakis, Reagan-Mondale, Reagan-Carter, Carter-Ford, but we are talking about Dubya here. This guy did not win his way into the WH, he was chosen. With the exception of Dubya and possibly Dukakis, they were all qualified. Dukakis got the nomination because Gary Hart had a little problem, but he was the most qualified and probably would have beaten GHW Bush.


I wouldn't have to read the book to already know what your saying it all too true. That is why I am working from the inside to change that. I may or may not succeed, but at least I know that I have tried and have had some affect to date. I don't just complain about it, I try to do something about it as well.

I agree with you there, and respect you for it. However, when I was in High School/University I worked for/with Senator Jack Danforth. He even wrote my letter of recommendation to medical school.

Dude, Al Qaeda's forerunner MAK wasn't founded until 1984. Carter couldn't fund something that didn't exist at the time he was in office.
Also, do you really want to get into what ex-aides are saying? Clark, Perle, Shinseki and other Generals, Powell, etc...
As for Mansoor Ijaz, what would you expect from a Fox Analyst.

This thread is disgusting. I know that BB is just a wind-up, but REALLY. JE, I found your photoshop picture of Hillary Clinton really, really lame. Why take the easy way out, sexualizing a female (possible) presidential candidate? It's just dumb.

I know that Hillary Clinton is not perfect. I know that the Clintons were involved in some pretty shady stuff, and of course everyone knows about her husband's presidency (although we shouldn't forget how amazingly popular he was among a large cross-section of Americans). However, she's a strong, smart woman and definitely not even a tiny bit as evil as the members of the current Bush administration. Please be a little more creative in your criticism.

Finally, I think JML said this - that one should vote for who they really want to win a presidential election. That just isn't true, unfortunately. The US election system is just not the same as the German/European model. We have a two-party system, and your vote for Nader in a swing state helps the conservatives (assuming that you are a liberal). Bottom line. I think it's stupid, too, but we won't change the system by allowing the conservatives to win. I am certain that Kerry, although a horrible candidate and generally soulless dead-fish type person, would have been a much better president than Bush.

I think this is the statement of reference, which I think is well said enough by broken M. Id rather not try to steal it for my own. (He knows where I live).

--

Howard Dean!