Aughhhhhh! I don't understand Bill Clinton!!! He says that he doesn't

believe the terror alerts were policitally motivated. Why does he do that shit????? Why does he constantly cover for bush*????

By the way, did anyone ever figure out how the news that the information the terror alerts were based on was over 3 or 4 years old?

tonight, like he's real tired.

Does he not like Letterman?

It was one of his administrations priorities. He was frustrated by the Republican Congress and Senates obstructions of his actions in that regard, and made it pursuing OBL one of his adminstrations highest recomendations for the following Bush administration.

and it appears that, although he expressly supports Kerry, he is deliberately doing the statesmanlike ex-president thing. He's staying above the fray, just saying positive things about Kerry, and is avoiding making accusations he can't prove -- like political motivations for the latest Terra Lert. We can say that; Howard Dean can say that; but Clinton won't go there. A smart move, IMO.

I can't imagine Bush knowing most of this stuff, much less being able to speak eloquently off the cuff about it.

n/t

then Jimmy is the man (or get Sadat & Begin to agree). But to get Europeans to go to war, you need a master like Bill. Smarter - well if he'd applied himself he could have gone for the PhD in physics at Georgetown.;)

Yes.

has a reason for what he says, their is always strategy behind it, he isn't just popping off.

But I am getting real tired of politicians letting internet people do all the hard work for this party while the ride "above the fray". It's getting lamer and lamer, in my book.

He is so disappointing. :shrug:

He's said for 40 years that the dems and the repugs and media work together for their own agenda and hell with america.

Works for his own agenda, and to hell with America.

He's not slaming shrub directly, but "I still think our biggest problem is Bin Laden, and we need to concentrate more on him."

Don'e you see, you don't tick off the supporters, but you subtly explain that we screwed up by going into Iraq instead of sticking with finding the real enemy.

He's very good at this. He can convince people there really is a problem with this Pres. without every saying it.

Mena


Google Mena Bush and Clinton


together



Clinton was governor of arkansas and had to cover for Bushes cocaine-contra flights at Mena airport.

They were both financed by the Stephens group (whose owner runs "Club for Growth which ran the antiDean ads) who had financing partnerships with the Saudis.

It's a dirty world.

Bill may be pretty and have a nice smile, but he covered for Bush at Mena in the '80's. THAT is why he got to be president and Gore did not.

and it explains whu he would bone us to help Bush like this.

That is my honest opinion.

Google: Mena, Bush, Clinton and then read what you find.

That's the goofiest theory I've heard yet.

as a quid pro quo. All I can remember from the book is it has something to do with Rhodesia. Guess I need to re-read the book again.

that * is right. He just screwed us! I believe your theory!

a cocaine habit.....................this sounds a bit like laRouche propaganda

n/t

Republican president George HW Bush getting a pass from a Democratic Governor for selling and transporting cocaine to finance arms sales to Iran or the Contras is Republican bullshit?

Pretty clever.

Implicate your own party in High Crimes while smearing your enemy with complicity charges.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

there was NEVER a full investigation of the Mena airport activities.

If you google the terms I proposed you will find well over 10,000 hits from sources right and left. Mostly, you are correct, they were from right wing sources who wanted to bring Clinton AND Bush down as new wor;d order types. It IS classic LaRocuhian rhetoric. But that does not make the claim false *LaRouche, in my opinion, serves as the "Innoculator" for such stories to protect everyone complicit because he is so crazy.

Kerry's Iran=Contra-Cociane investigations were scuttled when Clinton came into office (who knows why) - but the fact that the right wing Arkansas mafia (headed by the Stephens gtroup) financed both Bushes and Clinton says something to me.

Was Clinton so ambitious that he would sleep with dogs to get the presidency? Did he have an ounce of true moral integrity?

Do DLC democrats ever play footsie with the PNAC Republicans?

Did the North/Bush I cocaine contra weapons flights go in and out of Arkansas while Clinton was governor? Did Clinton have to be - at least to some degree - in the know in order for this to happen?

The reason this was never investigated is obvious. If it is true it makes the dems AND repubs look bad. NO Legislator wanted to investigate it.

If you start to dig into it it gets pretty murky and ugly. LOYS of lies. LOTS of truth.

I stick to my theory though:

why would Clinton kiss Bush's ass in a way that helps him in 2004 and hurts Kerry?

2 things: Hillary (its politics) and Mena.

He said that Al-Qaeda is patient and has a long-term outlook in planning and action. Events discussed among terrorists 4 years ago can become tomorrow morning's news. September 11, 2001 is a case in point. I think Clinton is right about this. While I'm sure that that the raised terror warning works to Bush's advantage, and while I hate the fact that * is smiling about that advantage tonight, I think the increased security in the areas around our major financial centers is an appropriate response.

Having mixed feelings is a sign of personal maturity.

:hi:

on Hardball tonight! :hi:

little pissed about your remark regarding maturity.

Other than that I understand that yes, old information may still be valid and good information. But I also understand the fact that these little tidbits of information only come out when bush* is in trouble and he wants to flex his 'I can protect you better' muscle.

If, in fact, they want to do something useful with this information they might quit cutting the budget for police and other security personnel and have them in the streets where we need them. I suppose that people should just look at the facts and determine for themselves whether they think that this is politically motivated. I know I certainly do. I know that we are going to be living through the 'terra' thing from not until November. And I think that if things start going badly for bush*, well hell, we ain't seen nothing yet.

But you know you gotta laugh when bush* sends the wife and kiddies off to one of the 'terra' targets, don't you. Either he's not that attached to the little women, or he knew that there really wasn't that much of a threat.

I still love to hear him give speeches, but he has made several comments lately I strongly disagree with.

Get the firebrand to make the accusation.

Have the statesman pooh-pooh it mildly.

Have the candidate say nothing.

The meme is now out there (which is something millions think anyway) but the candidate's fingerprints aren't on it.

The media created 'Crazy Howard Dean', and now they have to deal with it.

It's good politics, sez I.

It is good politics. People wonder is it real or is it Bush Speak?

as long as the argument is being made, people will question Bushco.

Howard Dean is doing a great job as the DNC pit bull. He says the things others (Clinton, Kerry, etc.) could never get away with. He takes many of the hits, but in this case, he planted the seed of doubt, and people are realizing this.

I just watched Letterman, and Clinton did a good job. I knew he was going to say that the 'terra' alert was justified. He really had no choice. If he came out saying it, it would not carry as much weight as many of us would think. It would be overshadowed by RW spin that 'Clinton is nuts, and what other crazy messes did he get us in?'

Remember, Clinton is campaigning for Kerry using Clinton's reputation. He can't afford to rock the boat with off-the-wall accusations. Don't get me wrong, I think the most recent 'terra' alert is nonsense, and me being a relative nobody can get away with saying this, but what if there actually was an attack (okay, just imagine)? Clinton does not want to gamble with this. It would murder his reputation, which has vastly improved as of late. He has to play it safe with the current administration, while reminding the people how good they had it during the 90s, and how they could bring it back with Kerry in the White House. This is his task for the Kerry campaign.

As someone said before, there was a reason that Clinton said what he said. He is perhaps the greatest and saaviest politician of our lifetime. He knows what he is doing. I'll trust him on this.

I also believe he knew exactly what he should say and not sound like he was ripping Bush apart for the benefit of the Kerry/Edwards team.
Coming on as if he was an Attack Dog would have alienated a lot of folks and truly accomplished nothing.

As you say...He's a very smart and savvy politician and speaker.
He knew exactly what he was doing....

He impresses me more every time I hear him speak and he knows EXACTLY what he's doing. Because he did not appear to be overly partisan, the Bush* jabs he was able to get in carry more weight, I think.

to be politically correct. Calling them on this shit is not a good idea for Kerry and Edwards. It could backfire bigtime. Dean is handling it fine.

going into Iraq and pointing out again that the inspectors wanted 4 weeks and were rebuffed. That looks pretty foolish now. Also, he tied it Afghanistan, how our resources are tied up in Iraq and we still don't have bin Laden.

Those are important points that people need to be reminded of...better to do that than to get embroiled in an overtly political argument....

Hats off to Lettermand for giving Clinton the chance to defuse the Berger mess....
And asking about Africa...........

Let the pundits and NYT carry that water. Maher, Stewart, Begala. Let the politicians be thoughtful and serious about it. The buildings are targets, Dean even said that. All he said was the timing of announcing the alert was suspicious.

a red meat attack dog he really energizes their base.
The statesman thing is fine. Let Dean throw the grenades.

He and the Bush CIA were involved in blackmailable events down yonder in Mena.

Sorry, but that story's been pretty well discredited in "The Hunting of the President". It's one of the bogus Clinton scandals that, ironically, the far left seems to have latched onto although it has gotten play in the usual Freeper sites too.

I think the problem here is that skepticism over the timing of the heightened terror alert is being extrapolated into believing there is no threat at all. Even Howard Dean today was quick to say that he does believe the terror alert is legitimate, he's just suspicious of when it was released considering the information's been known for some time now.

It would not surprise me to know Clinton was set up BUT that he also had to protect himself by playing ball with Bush.

Just one line )of coke) woulda done that. Or one acceptance of $$$. Just once. Or a dalliance with photos.

Clinton is slick and probably covered his ass all the way. But mostly that would have been because he did not WANT to know. He WANTED to play witth the big boys like Bush and so he hadda play by their rules.

a Clinton scandal, as it's part of the Iran/Contra story. Clinton, when Governor, covered the CIA's ass.

Thinks the Republican sitting at home watching it on TV... :) The art of language...

Clinton is not a bomb-throwing, hyperventilating internet politician.

One doesn't say aloud what one cannot prove unless one is a republican.

:D

He was very ex-presidential, in my opinion. Stately and funny, all in one interview.