Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Perspective? Wankers don't NEED no steenkin' perspective!


One of these things is not like the others ...

On lying: "Well, sure, so Bush lied about Iraq's WMDs, and yellowcake from Niger, and Saddam's connections to al-Qaeda, and eavesdropping on the American public, and lots of other stuff. But Bill Clinton lied about a blowjob, so it all balances out."

On corruption: "Well, sure, the Republicans have an endless stream of party members under investigation, and being charged, and indicted, and going to prison for years, but the Democrats have this crooked congressman in Florida [sic], so both parties are equally dirty."

On George Bush versus Saddam Hussein: "Well, sure, life in Iraq under American occupation might be a bit tough but, get real, are you telling me that you can't tell the difference between those two? I mean, are you seriously trying to compare those two? You have got to be kidding me! Where's your sense of perspective, fer Chrissake? That's an outrageous thing to say! How can you not possibly tell the difference?"

On Karl Rove and badges for Jews: "Well, sure, the entire right-wing blogosphere gullibly ran with this story of Iran and badges and Jews but all those Lefties still haven't retracted their fairy tale about Karl Rove being indicted. So it all evens out in the end, doesn't it?"

7 comments:

Meaghan Walker-Williams said...

Whoa there, Clinton and his people did more than lie about a blow-job. He lied to a grand-jury about it. He also engaged in obstruction of justice re Paula Jones' case as well as the use of condfidental FBI files which were used to attack Linda Tripp, which I would say puts him on the same level as Karl Rove and Scooter Libby and Perhaps (if it sticks - Dick Cheney). For more info also, you should check out the story of Patrick Knowlton who was a witness in Fort Marcy Park on the day that Vince Foster was iced/committed suicide...

I don't mean to be a pain in the ass here...but it wasn't just a lie about a blow job. If that's all it was, then hey - no biggie.

But "under the law* - if you lie to grand jury, you're supposed to go to jail. Even if you are the president of the United States (like WJC) or the best buddy of the President like Turd Blossom.

CC said...

MWW:

Regarding the confidential FBI files, I will refer you here. And I will be happy to let others debunk the remainder of your claims, if they wish.

steve said...

If people are still swallowing the "it's more than a blowjob" lie, they'll believe anything.

Bubba was not a threat to the u.s. or the world's security.

Adam said...

If I understood things correctly - and I damn well did my best to tune it out - there really was more to it than a blow job. There was context: why was a grand jury interested in whether he'd cheated on his wife? Because he'd been accused of sexual harrassment, or even assault (I forget). If true, either would have been a lot more serious than lying about cheating on his wife.

And absolutely fucking trivial compared with dropping bombs on cities.

(Plus, I'd be pretty sure the Foster stuff is complete bull. If after all those years and millions of dollars the Republicans couldn't even get charges laid, there was nothing there.)

CC said...

First, regarding the alleged "assault," I suspect we're talking about Paula Jones' lawsuit, which is savagely debunked here, among about a couple zillion other places.

Read, in particular, the second screen, in which Jones' statements in her deposition directly contradict those in her sworn civil complaint. So enough with the Paula Jones idiocy, please.

And as for the Vince Foster murder/suicide controversy, I am assuming that MWW is getting this fairy tale (directly or indirectly) from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton," which is so far beyond tin-foil hat silliness that you can't even see it from here.

MWW, I used to have a certain amount of respect for you. But this is just pure, eye-rolling wingnut territory.

Anonymous said...

here was context: why was a grand jury interested in whether he'd cheated on his wife? Because he'd been accused of sexual harrassment, or even assault (I forget).

Ken Starr was investigating that Whitewater thing, which turned out to be bunk. He only asked permission to expand his investigation when Linda Tripp came to him.

Meaghan Walker-Williams said...

No, I did not get my info from AEP's book. Although I did correspond with him a few times during the course of his time on the usenet... where I spent about 5 years on alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater

There is no mention in the link you gave of where the files ended up -- (In Hillary's closet in the living quarters of the WH with her fingerprints on the box) and I also note that during all the testimony given by the Clinton Administration officials, nobody will admit to hiring Craig Livingstone. Not a one.

And I can't believe that none of you remember Janet Reno's mass murder of innocent women and children at Waco -- which sparked off the hard-right milita movement (of which I can easily draw a line between them and the neo-con movement of today), as well as giving nutjobs like Timothy McVeigh his excuse for blowing up the Murrah Building. Disgusting... all around my friend.

I do not claim to know what happened to Vince Foster, but I do know that the Klinger Report, and the Subsequent Starr Report on his death contain inconsistencies of fact that are not easily explained away. If you are really interested in this subject, I suggest doing a websearch on the name Miquel Rodriguez who worked for Starr as a state's attorney in the prosecutors office, and eventually had to quit over the shoddy work on the Vince Foster case .

There are 3 tapes of interviews he gave with white-water hobbyists (like myself) available to listen to on-line. I'm sorry -- but the whole Vince Foster death scenario, as outlined in offical reports simply do not add up.

Also look up the case of Patrick Knowlton, a witness who was in Fort Marcy Park, on the day of the discovery of the body, and who was then harrassed relentlessly by the FBI when he simply tried to get his account truthfully put on the record. Unfortunatley for Mr.Knowlton, his eyewitness testimony contradicted the official version of truth. The FBI did not like that. Not in the least.

There are still on-going efforts by Alan Favish, an attorney in California to get access to information on Vince Foster's death. It's not a closed book as far as I'm concerned.

My suspicion is that Ken Starr saw that by dropping the Vince Foster case, and turning the investigation into a sensationalized one focussing on sex and blowjobs, he might have a better chance at convinction, than the humdrum dry and boring details of Cattlegate, Filegate, Travel-Gate and so on...

And let me be clear on this -- I could give a rats ass if Clinton got blown by Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office, or what they did with Cigars and whatnot.

There were far more serious crimes going on, which did threaten America's national security.. For example the sale of missle technology to the Chinese in exchange for Campaign Contributions. Google on LIPPO for more information.

And as for the sexual harrasment... does anybody else recall the testiomony of other women who claimed to have been sexually harrassed by Bill Clinton, not just Paula Jones.

And hey... all the brouhaha about Valerie Plame's name being leaked to the press -- I can understand. But where was this similar brouhaha, about Linda Tripps file being leaked to the press, in order to try and destroy her life and her career. (BTW she sued over this, and I believe she won). Same principles are/were at stake. It's wrong to use confidential or top-secret information to engage in personal vendetta against whistleblowers - be they Linda Tripps, or Valerie Plames.

As for the Republicans not getting charges laid after millions of dollars spent on investigations -- do you really think the Democrats are going to Impeach Col McChimpy over his High Crimes and Treason? No - way Jose.

The republicans did not want to impeach a sitting president, because they knew that this would result in impeachments of their presidents in the future. They wanted to embarrass Clinton and the Democrats, and that is the extent of their willingness to proceed on this. And embarrass him they did! Rightly so.

There will be no impeachment of President George Bush, just like there was no impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton. The professional politicos in Washington are not willing to set the stage for that kind of end-game to play out for the other side, because it means the same standards will be applied to them and their presidents when it's their turn in power.

Look CC, I really believed that there could not have been a worse president of the United States than Bill Clinton. And then they got George W Bush.

I take it back. George W Bush is far far far worse, in my view. Although Clinton's handling of Kosovo was pretty disgusting as well -- but doesn't quite reach the same level of insanity that Bush's "war on terra" has.

Look.. I am not a partisan. I have no dog in any of these fights. I am only telling you what I read, what I came to understand and believe.

Now, given my druthers, I would have loved to have seen Howard Dean nominated for President -- but the Clinton Spin Machine too him out of the running. But he was the only anti-war candidate in the whole process. I am not a republican or a democrat. I just looked at the facts and did my own homework and investigation into the Clinton Years, as I am doing now in the Bush years. They are both rotten presidents, but I have no doubt that the next president will be even more rotten than either of them.