.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Lies Bill Clinton Told Me

If you listen to The Left these days they will tell you that no one has a right to criticize the two Clinton Terms. You do know that he did everything right, don't you? The tenure of his administration and its cabal of crooks are above having their performances examined and graded. That's why everyone in the Clinton Crime Family is manifesting such deep rooted histrionics over the ABC Docu-drama "The Path To 9/11".

Not long ago we heard that the Clinton Administration turned down offers from countries willing to "give us" Osama Bin Laden. We heard that that scenario happened two or three times. Recently we've heard that the actual number of times that Clinton and Company turned down offers of Bin Laden may run as high as seven or eight.

The author of Dereliction of Duty", "Buzz" Patterson, tells us that one of those times a phone call to Clinton, informing him that Bin Laden was in the cross-hairs, came while Clinton was watching a golf tournament. Clinton declined to approve moving in on Bin Laden. Well, Mr. Patterson should know, because he was the man carrying the nuclear suitcase for Clinton.

Patterson told [World Net Daily] he recognizes the ["Path To 9/11"] television production conflates several events, but, in terms of conveying how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to get bin Laden, it's "100 percent factually correct," he said.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned and Clinton watched golf while Bin Laden escaped...again and again.

Clinton lost his license to practice law because of his perjury - for you Libs out there that means he LIED UNDER OATH - which is directly related to his professional life and his life as the highest official elected to office in our country. His PERJURY had nothing to do with his personal life except for being the genesis of his perjury. Had he been someone who, in his personal life, was able to keep his pants zipped, he wouldn't have had to LIE.

And now, crawling out of the outhouse comes a collective and organized whine from The Left over a docu-drama. The Left wants to censor a fictional film based on real events. Gee, a fictional film based on real events - the entertainment industry has never made a film like that before, have they?

The Left doesn't want their actions examined at all, not even in a fictional presentation. Why is that? What is it they're trying to hide? They're trying to hide and censor any type of media that is critical of them or attempts to examine the abysmal blunders committed between January 1993 to January 2001.

The events leading up to September 11, 2001, were not hastily put together during January through September of 2001. Bin Laden himself says he recognized the weakness of America to tolerate military casualties the moment Clinton pulled our troops out of Somalia. Bin Laden wasn't talking about the weakness of the American people, he meant those in charge of our country at that time.

The U.S. was weakened for a steady eight year period during the Clinton Administration. The only government entity to experience budget cuts was the military. The concept of defending ourselves as a country was weakened in our intelligence and information agencies. The morale of our country was weakened by divisive, partisan politics and the Clinton Crime Family who, for eight years, were more concerned about their own personal enrichment rather the well-being of the country.

Hubris? Thy name is the two Clinton Terms!


Kudos for this post.

I disliked Clinton over the Lewinsky situation for two reasons, which you eloquently coverd.

1. Clinton lied under oath. This is huge! It shows he has no respect for the rule of law, and none for Congress.

2. The affair. Lots of people said, at the time, that if a president has an extra-marital affair, it's nobody's business. After all, they said, Jacques Chirac has many mistresses.

Bullshit. I (we?) need the guy who walks around with the football -- the device that can launch total nuclear annihilation -- to have some basic morals and scruples. No?

I hold the president to a higher standard than myself because I'm not the leader of the free world. I don't carry the football. I don't command 13 supercarriers. No B2 bombers fly at my say-so. And, nobody listens when I talk, except my cat.
I (we?) need the guy who walks around with the football -- the device that can launch total nuclear annihilation -- to have some basic morals and scruples. No? - absolutely, you have it right.

And I've always said that it wasn't about his personal life, as the Left always trots out. It's about him perjuring himself....about a BJ. Why should anyone believe someone like that about anything else they say? And this guy was the president. UnF-Real.
Post a Comment

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker

Web Site Traffic Counters
Alabama Internet

Listed on BlogShares

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

This site uses photographs and material from other sources in strict
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.

Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.