Actually, it had everything to do with al Queda [NOTE: BTW, I refuse to change the spelling per the NIE], or at least international terrorist groups, obtaining nuclear weapons from armed rogue states. That was the main fear in the aftermath of 9/11 – it wasn’t the idea that Iraq would have lobbed a cruise missle our way (though there were concommittant fears about upsetting regional stability with a nuclear-armed Iraq).
[quote]hspder wrote:
It’s fascinating that when it’s a liberal getting an award they question the validity of the awards or of the institution giving them out, but when it’s a conservative, the awards suddenly become really important and relevant.
How convenient.
[/quote]
I question the quality of the university that would even hire such a hag.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Hilarious. Maybe we need a thread all its own to chart all the useless Vroomisms?
[/quote]
Haha, I like the idea.
I would like to submit “word games” as an official entry if I could.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Douchebag,
You can’t argue against all of the Richard Clark exerts and quotes that proved Clinton to be a liar, BUT because the easiest way to site them all was using the Rush transcript you are going to dismiss them? Liberal argument at its finest.[/quote]
Doogie, if you didn’t know it, what Clinton said, regarding his actions were pretty much factually correct. There is some concern about whether he left “comprehensive” plans or whether they were “comprehensive” enough.
However, if you want to quibble about how close who got and whether Bush got closer and so forth, then really, go ahead.
Clinton outlined what he did and why, and because it goes against a lot of anti-liberal dogma, he must be lying. It’s really sad.
Bah, you guys can cry all you want.
When I see supreme bullshit happening in the media, such as “proving” Clinton is lying because phrases are changed when countering his statements, I’m going to call it.
Whether you know it or not, a great disservice is being done to you, all of you, and your nation, by your glorious media and it’s pundits.
I’ll try, and I’m sure fail, to point out real sources of information and real twists being performed on such information, because the use of these “word games” is an important issue.
People need to start seeing it, so they will stop believing their “side” so entirely and maybe have a real discussion of issues instead of retarded stances.
Fuck, what are the odds? Talk about pissing into the wind. Regardless, it is the right thing to do.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Whether you know it or not, a great disservice is being done to you, all of you, and your nation, by your glorious media and it’s pundits.
[/quote]
The mere fact that vroom is trying to be the “enlightened one” here is worthy of one of those fake-assed liberal awards.
Honestly - have you ever taken a position out of conviction in your life? Being affraid of one side and choosing the other does not count - as fear is not conviction.
I have to wonder where you put your testicles when straddling fences like that - mine would be pierced.
And what is really funny - is that you call everyone clueless. Dude - wake the fuck up and look around.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
The mere fact that vroom is trying to be the “enlightened one” here is worthy of one of those fake-assed liberal awards.
Honestly - have you ever taken a position out of conviction in your life? Being affraid of one side and choosing the other does not count - as fear is not conviction.
I have to wonder where you put your testicles when straddling fences like that - mine would be pierced.
And what is really funny - is that you call everyone clueless. Dude - wake the fuck up and look around. [/quote]
Rainjack, perhaps you could explain to me where you read fear into what I’m saying? I just can’t even fathom where that comes from.
Do you assume I have no convictions and then manufacture some internal state of mind to explain my actions?
Or, alternately, is this just another attempt to attack me for no reason other than I’m saying something you don’t want to hear?
Honestly, I can’t figure out what your malfunction is.
I’ll tell you something though. Do you know what I read in people who support torturing terrorists? Fear. We all know that torture is wrong, but out of fear, some are willing to justify it’s use.
It’s pure cowardice. Talk about relativism. Gee, looks to me like I’m taking a stand based on a conviction. Perhaps if you actually considered what I said, instead of your opinion of me, you’d be surprised.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Do you assume I have no convictions and then manufacture some internal state of mind to explain my actions?[/quote]
No - I have never seen you actually take a stand on anything. No one else has either. You are always on the fence telling everyone how enlightened you are. Honestly - you have heard this all before. No one has changed their view of you - as you are still the nutless wonder that has mistaken riding the fence as a virtue.
You have yet to say anything. That is my entire point. You tell everyone to think. But you have never offered anything to think about. You are proud of your neutrality - or your ability to never say anything in the midst of extremely elongated posts.
[quote]Honestly, I can’t figure out what your malfunction is.
[/quote]
WTF does that even mean? Malfunction? LMAO. My “malfunction” - if there is one - is your inability to ever say anything of substance.
Here’s an idea: The first 20 words of your post should not contain any reference to ‘kool-aid’, ‘cheerleader’ or any of the other epithets you find so clever (btw - they are not clever, and are way overdue for retirement).
Instead - take those twenty words to clearly state your position. FYI - position cannot be that of riding the fence. If you cannot offer a position that contributes to anything but stroking your ego in 20 words - don’t post. Wait until you have something to say that someone wants to read.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
No - I have never seen you actually take a stand on anything. No one else has either. You are always on the fence telling everyone how enlightened you are. Honestly - you have heard this all before. No one has changed their view of you - as you are still the nutless wonder that has mistaken riding the fence as a virtue. [/quote]
Bullshit. Use your brain.
Don’t you remember me saying that I supported building a wall, and that the US must find a way to secure it’s border in order to deal with illegal immigration? Fuck, grab a clue, my stance isn’t even in line with liberals, as far as I can tell.
If you don’t, I’d call that a selective memory. Perhaps you don’t remember me stating about a million times that I think going into Afghanistan was an appropriate course of action? I take a stance all the time. Perhaps you should take a closer look.
Fuck, I’m taking a stance about your media, and I’m taking a stance right now to counter your bullshit claims.
By the way, you keep trying to tell me what people do or don’t think of me. What the fuck is up with that?
Is this because you are motivated by what people think of you? I honestly don’t give a shit what people think of my opinions, they can think what they want.
Sounds like a pussy approach to me, you must have me mistaken for someone else, perhaps yourself?
Yet more bullshit. Perhaps I’m talking about things you don’t see, understand or consider important, but I’m talking about things all the time.
Here’s an idea, I’ll write about whatever the fuck I want to write about the way I want to write about it and you can stop whining about it any time now.
Oh boo hoo, I’m not talking about things the way you’d prefer. Wauuuugh. Stop being such a fucking crybaby and just bring up subject topics to talk about, or ask me my opinion on something. I’m probably never going to write three word posts on black and white issues. Get over it already.
I’m sure as not hell going to change my posting style because you are going to be baby about it all the time.
This ongoing thread wrecking is fucking attrocious. Find something to discuss other than my posting style, if you even can.
Clinton claimed there was a republican movement to label him as being obsessed with Bin Laden. Let’s focus on that. Is it true? No, not just a couple republicans. Was there a concerted effort? We have the internet at our disposal, so why can’t we answer this question, and come to an honest conclusion? Post your quotes and article links!
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I am in no way apologizing for people’s misguided behavior. One point of difference is that I am sane enough to realize the futility of waging war against the inconceivable.[/quote]
First, I said if and contain not when and eradicate. I suffer no dilusions about the complexity and unpredictability of controlling ideas and thought. Also, I in no way suggested you were apologizing, I was merely saying that your assertion of ‘invincible’ ideas is misguided, if not wrong. Ideas of all sorts die all the time, sometimes slowly and quitely, sometimes violently. ‘Convert by the sword’ refuses to die quietly.
So, when you choose an association like racism and I show you how it contradicts you, you assert I’m wrong because you don’t like my example? (I’m surprised you chose that one.) I wonder if any of the ‘volunteers’ actually fighting terror do it because of how it makes them feel? Or are they all out to eliminate every terrorist on the face of the earth?
-
i thought it was refreshing to see a politician drop the rhetoric and “poli-speak” and talking points and show some emotion and get down to the “nitty-gritty” i wish more would do the same. though i cant stand bush, i wish he would go off on some of the blatantly left wing journalist who heckle him constantly, though i doubt he is capable of stringing more than one or two sentences together at a time.
-
ex pres or not, i would have had to remind slick willy that i am not a 20 year female intern and he had better keep his grubby mits to himself. the first time he reached over and poked me with that pig sticker of his i would have broke it off and shoved it up his ass.
-
am i the ONLY person who is SICK AND FUCKING tired of everybody blaming everybody for 911, EXCEPT the Islamic militants who hijacked the planes?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Clinton claimed there was a republican movement to label him as being obsessed with Bin Laden. Let’s focus on that. Is it true? No, not just a couple republicans. Was there a concerted effort? We have the internet at our disposal, so why can’t we answer this question, and come to an honest conclusion? Post your quotes and article links![/quote]
Sloth, good post. I don’t know if anyone will go out and do it… but I do recall Clinton making claims about right wing media quite a bit, so I do believe that he believes that statement.
Why do I even mention that? Because this is used as a defense of Bush, that he believed what he said, quite a bit.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Clinton claimed there was a republican movement to label him as being obsessed with Bin Laden. Let’s focus on that. Is it true? No, not just a couple republicans. Was there a concerted effort? We have the internet at our disposal, so why can’t we answer this question, and come to an honest conclusion? Post your quotes and article links!
Sloth, good post. I don’t know if anyone will go out and do it… but I do recall Clinton making claims about right wing media quite a bit, so I do believe that he believes that statement.
Why do I even mention that? Because this is used as a defense of Bush, that he believed what he said, quite a bit.[/quote]
Hasn’t that been the battle cry for 15 years now. Dem’s piss and moan about Fox and Rush. Rep’s piss and moan about Cnn and broadcast news outlets.
Is it real or perception? And even if it exists, it is hardly worth the battle because most Dem supporters won’t watch Fox and Rep supporters blast CNN and broadcast.
Though I must admit, the media–pre Monica–didn’t seem so mean spirited against Clinton. And I certainly don’t remember waive after waive of criticism over his non-action at the time. Maybe I wasn’t as tuned in then, maybe I didn’t compare media to see the two sides.
And might I add the vroom bashing is horseshit. Their are idiosyncrasies in all of our posting styles. While vroom and I rarely agree, and as I have attacked him in the past, I won’t preach. There are other forums for such personal nonsense.
Sloth,
I don’t know if you’ll accept CNN as a reasonably impartial source?
Cohen Criticizes ‘Wag the Dog’ Characterization
[i]
At that time, some GOP lawmakers used the phrase “wag the dog” to describe Clinton’s military actions, saying he was using conflicts abroad to deflect attention from the domestic scandal. A movie of the same name came out in 1997, and the plot involves a presidential administration that launches a war as a political ploy.
Testifying before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Cohen said the U.S. military was prepared to kill or capture al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden whenever there was “actionable intelligence.”
But he also said trying to capture bin Laden and his associates was like “mercury on a mirror.”
Clinton came under intense criticism in 1998 by the GOP after he launched an attack on suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan. Intelligence indicated bin Laden and his top associates were meeting at a training camp when U.S. missiles were fired at it, just weeks after al Qaeda terrorists bombed U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.
The attack was launched on the same day Lewinsky, a former White House intern, wrapped up her testimony before a grand jury investigating whether Clinton lied under oath about their relationship or encouraged anyone else to do so.
[/i]
Also, whether there was really so much “wag the dog” going on at the time, a freaking movie came out which certainly would have taken up a large amount of mindshare:
‘Wag the Dog’ Back In Spotlight
[i]
LOS ANGELES (AllPolitics, Aug. 21) – A president embroiled in a sex scandal in the Oval Office tries to save his presidency by distracting the nation with a made-for-TV war far from American soil in an obscure country.
It’s not the latest news out of Washington, but the plot of the movie “Wag the Dog.” In the 1997 movie, a shadowy spin doctor played by Robert De Niro recruits a Hollywood producer (Dustin Hoffman) to invent a war against Albania.
The film came out just before the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke – and no doubt benefited at the box office and then at the video store from the publicity. Now, the film is all the buzz again because of President Clinton’s announcement – three days after admitting for the first time an inappropriate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky – that he ordered military strikes in two countries.
From the moment Clinton went on live television Thursday to announce the bombings in Afghanistan and Sudan, “Wag the Dog’s” producer-director Barry Levinson and producer Jane Rosenthal were inundated with requests for comment.
“The world’s media right now are giving the filmmakers far too much credit for being clairvoyant,” said their spokesman, Simon Halls. “The filmmakers put together a movie that was entertainment, and it was well received, but that’s what it was: entertainment. Anything that is happening in the world today really has nothing to do with the movie.”
But the movie is serving as a reference point in the debate over Clinton’s motivations.
“Look at the movie ‘Wag the Dog.’ I think this has all the elements of that movie,” Rep. Jim Gibbons said. “Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems.”
[/i]
Here’s a great piece, ripping into Clinton for using war as cover…
Did Clinton Lie or Abuse Power in Orchestrating Rationale for Pre-impeachment War
[i]
The Washington Times (12/18/98, p. 1) reports "The White House orchestrated a plan to provoke Saddam Hussein into defying United Nations weapons inspectors so President Clinton could justify air strikes, former and current government officials charge.
"Scott Ritter, a former U.N. inspector who resigned this summer, said yesterday the U.N. Special Commission (Unscom) team led by Richard Butler deliberately chose sites it knew would provoke Iraqi defiance at the White House’s urging.
"Mr. Ritter also said Mr. Butler, executive chairman of the Unscom, conferred with the Clinton administration’s national security staff on how to write his report of noncompliance before submitting it to the U.N. Security Council Tuesday night.
"The former inspector said the White House wanted to ensure the report contained sufficiently tough language on which to justify its decision to bomb Iraq.
“?I’m telling you this was a preordained conclusion. This inspection was a total setup by the United States,? Mr. Ritter said. ?The U.S. was pressing [the U.N.] to carry out this test. The test was very provocative. They were designed to elicit Iraqi defiance.?..”
TIMING IS EVERYTHING
“The White House knew by Dec. 9, when U.N. inspectors were in Baghdad, that the House had planned to debate impeachment as early as Wednesday, Dec. 16. Air strikes began that day.”
EVIDENCE CONFIRMS THAT CLINTON’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK ON IRAQ WAS A LONG-PLANNED POLITICAL PLOY
Robert Novak points out that (The Washington Post, 12/21/98, p. A29) "As Clinton took Palestinian applause in Gaza last Monday [December 14], secret plans were underway for an air strike coinciding with the House impeachment vote. The president had time to consult with Congress and the U.N. Security Council but took no step that might stay his hand.
“As whenever a president pulls the trigger, Clinton’s top national security advisers supported him. But majors and lieutenant colonels at the Pentagon, whose staff work undergirds any military intervention, are, in the words of a senior officer, ?200 percent opposed. They disagree fundamentally.? They know the attack on Iraq was planned long before Butler’s report and consider it politically motivated.”
U.N. VIOLATIONS PROP WAS A CLINTON-SCRIPTED PROP
According to Rowan Scarborough (The Washington Times, 12/17/98, p. A1), "The White House notified the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Sunday that President Clinton would order air strikes this week, 48 hours before he saw a United Nations report declaring Iraq in noncompliance with weapons inspectors, it was learned from authoritative sources last night…
"Pentagon sources said National Security Council aides told the Joint Chiefs to quickly update a bombing plan that was shelved in mid-November and were told that a strike would be ordered in a matter of days.
“Israeli spokesman Aviv Bushinsky said yesterday in Jerusalem that President Clinton discussed preparations for an attack with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just minutes before Mr. Clinton flew home from Israel’s Ben-Gurion Airport on Tuesday, ending a three-day peace mission…”
U.S. MILITARY OFFICIALS WERE SKEPTICAL
"Nevertheless, a senior congressional source, who asked not to be named, said senior Pentagon officers expressed great skepticism to him about the raids. This source said that the White House eagerness to launch air strikes grew with intensity as a parade of centrist Republicans announced they would vote to impeach the president, in a vote originally scheduled for today.
“?I have had senior flag and general officers question the timing,? the congressional source said. ?I have had senior military officers laughing. I hate to say that…Why now? He hasn’t built a coalition. He hasn’t done anything. Why this timing??..”
[/i]
Here’s an article on Salon discussing the reaction to the strike…
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/08/21newsc.html
[i]
Did Bill wag the dog?
After Clinton called out the warplanes, Beltway skeptics said they’d already seen the movie.
BY DAVID CORN | WASHINGTON – It took only a few minutes for one of the reporters in the Pentagon pressroom to ask Secretary of Defense William Cohen the question on many minds: “Have you seen the movie?” He was referring to “Wag the Dog” and the unsettling coincidence between Thursday’s military strikes and a movie in which political fixers concoct a war to distract public attention from a presidential sex scandal.
Cohen adopted a steely expression as he replied, “The only motivation driving this action today was our absolute obligation to protect the American people.”
But cynicism could not be avoided. I was eating lunch with a prominent Republican official when his office called to inform him of the Clinton-ordered attacks on terrorist installations in Afghanistan and a supposed chemical-weapons factory in Sudan. The official immediately asked the caller, “Is CNN airing video footage of a young girl running with a kitten?” – a direct reference to a scene in the film. He got up to leave, noting, “Clinton will do anything to get away from Hillary.”
It’s inevitable. After what seems a week of media elites venting about The Speech – and it’s only been three days! – nothing Bill Clinton says can be taken at face value in this town. Some of us have long believed he is a fellow not to be trusted, based on his policy decisions on campaign finance reform, global warming, budget politics, Lani Guinier, welfare legislation, mass murder in Rwanda and other matters. But now the core of Washington’s ruling class appears to have turned on the man, as well.
It’s tough to argue that he doesn’t deserve this. But Republicans ought to be careful about going too far in dismissing Clinton. When Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., questioned Clinton’s motives in launching the attacks – “Why did he wait until now?” – reporters at a press conference (which Coats opportunistically called minutes after the news broke) harshly cross-examined the senator. Didn’t he take Bill Cohen, an ex-senator and Republican with whom Coats served, at his word? Coats had to pause before continuing his anti-Clinton spin.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., also rushed before television cameras to suggest that Clinton may have had more than national security on his mind in deciding to bomb. Oddly, two days ago, the president’s critics were arguing that his scandalous behavior rendered it difficult for him to act decisively. Then when he did move forcefully, that aggravated his antagonists.
[/i]
An excerpt from a Clinton bashing article on Newsmax from 2002, basically rebutting claims that Bush was trying to wag the dog…
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/13/211338.shtml
[i]
Bill Clinton epitomized the concept of “wag the dog.”
The Clintons played each scandal like a volleyball, deflecting one scandal after another by contrived news events and even wars.
Bill Clinton’s 1999 war over Kosovo was perhaps the most egregious use of presidential power to divert the public’s attention and save a presidency.
Remember, when Clinton began the war he had just come out of the Lewinsky scandal, impeachment and near removal from office.
And yet the scandal was still top news on the TV shows.
[/i]
From what looks like an old page on an educational domain, preserving a document from Paul Hager’s run for congress…
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~hagerp/PR_warpw.html
[i]
Paul Hager for Congress
For more information contact campaign manager R. David Fisher (812-723-4288 office) or the candidate directly (317-510-3198 office).
Clinton’s “Wag the Dog” problem due to Congressional surrender of war powers.
For immediate release: 30-August-1998
(Bloomington, IN) - “If the President and Congress adhered to the Constitution, no one would be suggesting that the reprisal raids ordered by Clinton were like something out of Wag the Dog.” So says Libertarian candidate Paul Hager, noting the concern expressed in some quarters that the timing and targets of the reprisal raids ordered by President Bill Clinton were motivated in part by his domestic political problems.
“In ordering the attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan, President Clinton committed acts of war,” said Hager. “The power to declare war is reserved to Congress, though in fairness to Clinton, he is merely doing what every President from Truman on has done. Since the end of World War II, Congress has basically surrendered its responsibility to authorize military actions to the executive branch.”
[/i]
Wikipedia has this to say…
Wag the Dog - Wikipedia
Less than a month after the movie was released, President Bill Clinton was embroiled in a sex scandal arising from his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Over the course of 1998 and early 1999, as the scandal dominated American politics, the US engaged in three military options: Operation Desert Fox, a three-day bombing campaign in Iraq that took place as the U.S. House of Representatives debated articles of impeachment against Clinton; Operation Infinite Reach, a pair of missile strikes against suspected terrorist targets in Sudan and Afghanistan just three days after Clinton admitted in a nationally televised address that he had an inappropriate relationship with Lewinsky; and Operation Allied Force, a months-long NATO bombing campaign against Serbia that began just weeks after Clinton was acquitted in his Senate impeachment trial. Critics, including Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, charged that the former operation was an attempt to distract attention from the Lewinsky scandal, and Serb state television went so far as to broadcast Wag The Dog in the midst of NATO attacks on Serbia. The video cassette version of the film contains an extended feature after the credits that has commentary about the movie in the context of the Lewinsky scandal by the producers of the movie and Tom Brokaw. Similar accusations arose when missile attacks were launched against terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmecutical factory in Sudan on August 20, known as Operation Infinite Reach, 3 days after Clinton admitted to a Grand Jury he had had improper relations with Lewinsky. This would end up being the major reaction to the bombing of the United States’ embassies in Africa. Similar criticisms were later leveled against President George W. Bush, whose invasion of Iraq and saber-rattling discourse with Iran were also viewed by some, including New York Times columnist Frank Rich, as being a foreign distraction to avert domestic unpopularity.
–
There were some quick statements by a few republicans, but then the wagons were circled and the politicians themselves appear to have gotten behind Sandy Berger and William Cohen… as points of credibility.
I’m sure I can drag up more. Sloth, if you are willing to concede there was an incredible amount of media speculation, and some republican speculation, then I’ll admit there may have been less actual republican statements… presumably because they didn’t have to say anything.
This would be similar to when the torture provisions were being debated between republicans, the democrats didn’t need to say anything, because republicans were doing the job. Except in this case, the media and pundits were out there doing it.
Anyway, what I would say, is that all the blogs out there which are dismissive, fail to mention all the media coverage, the widespread speculation, and so forth. It’s not hard to imagine that Clinton simply saw it is a right wing thing, the whole wag the dog issue.
As for an exploration on Clinton’s approach to terror, here is a piece of history that gets little play:
So, he lets loose members of this terror outfit on the gentlemen’s agreement that they ‘renounce violence’. Then he blocked Congressional investigation of it.
Quick blip on FALN:
And more, from an ABC news blog, which really concluded what I did above… the media went after Clinton more than the republican leadership:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2006/09/the_truth_about.html
*(An interesting side note – Clinton WAS slammed by Republicans for using “Wag the Dog” tactics after he authorized a strike against Iraq in December 1998, during impeachment. According to the Los Angeles Times, then-Senate Majority Leader Lott took the step of refusing to back the military action, saying “the timing and the policy are subject to question.” And other Republicans – including then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) and then-Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) – expressed similar sentiments.)
On a different note, those that seem to complain most loudly about an irrational hatred of Bush by ABB’r types, somehow are the same ones that seem to have an irrational hatred of Clinton.
Isn’t that surprising!
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I can certainly see why Clinton thought the right-wing was out to get him w/r/t the missle strikes on Afghanistan and Somalia – look how quickly this guy jumped on him:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40B1EFD3C540C7B8DDDA00894D0494D81
errr, maybe there’s a bit of selective memory going on as to the genesis or one-sided nature of the critiques he faced…[/quote]
That right wing conspiracy is so vast that even Jimmy Carter is part of it. Hell he is leading it!