Fuuuuck.
I’ve agreed with John Mace twice in one week.
Maybe LaHaye and Jenkins are on to something.
:d&r:
Well, after seeing you all go round and round for years, december pranked you guys well, and scored a bullseye.
While I agree it might have been a bit over the top, I would have loved to see the look on some of your faces when you realized you got your balls busted bigtime.
I have no dog in this hunt and think it was funny as hell.
Feel free to rag my ass as well, but you hard-core lefties must admit you got slammed hard on that. hehe!
I say good shot december! I am laughing out loud still.
It’s just a message board people, one of thousands on the net.
Get over it.
Considering the content of both that thread and this one from “hard-core lefties,” I’d like to hear how and why you think what you claim above actually happened…
Maybe I can anticipate some responses to save y’all time and typing.
In no particular order:
Fuck you
You’re an asshole
If it’s “just another message board” find another one dipshit.
You are just another december apologist.
Fuck you Klaatu
Bite me
Cite please
Kiss my ass
ad nauseum…
Misleading and less that honest comments made by December in the closed thread and in the current thread:
(If December had not been trying to mislead us, he would have offered the obvious third alternative of “or has the situation changed substantially since his statement was made?”)
(The use of the present tense in the last sentence mplies that Clinton has a current policy based on intelligence briefings.)
(Since less than one-fourth of the quoted material was actually from “the President,” it is difficult – if not impossible – to determine if any attacks were made on what was actually said by “the President.”
I did not respond to your original thread because I was puzzled by why President Bush would claim that:
To the best of my knowledge, President Bush has slyly tried his damnedest to convince everyone that Saddam was involved, at least indirectly, with 9-11.
At least no one is going to accurately accuse you of being “unfailingly polite” again.
The problem with this little experiment is context, as has been stated by previous posters.
Had Bush made the same statements in 1998, many of us would have probably thought there was a pretty good chance he was correct, and it’s quite possible he would have been. If you peruse the old threads predating the war, you’ll see that a LARGE number of the usual suspects (Hi gang!) conceded that Iraq might have WoMD, but disagreed with the need to go to war over that suspicion.
By the same token, if Clinton had made that statement recently, and did so with the exact same intelligence that Bush had, he’d be a liar, much like the OP. On that note, Hillary may very well be a liar, although I doubt she gets the exact same intelligent briefings that Bush does, so I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt for now.
In Bush’s favor, he at least didn’t lie under oath, right december? I mean killing thousands of folks based on a lie is okay as long as he wasn’t under oath when he did it. Thank goodness for the “finger crossing” strategy, or he’d be a really bad person.
C-O-N-T-E-X-T is everything.
Not a bad idea, but I think that a permanent change to “Lying Sack of Shit” would be better. 
Out of interest, as a non american, I’m surprised that “The President” is a term you’d apply to a former president.
For example, in the UK if I referred to the Prime Minister I think it would be a clear reference to the currenty prime minister. I could not refer to Prime Minister Thatcher, for example.
Is this not the case in the US?
No. Former politicians are generally referred to with the name of the highest office they have ever held. Ex-Presidents are generally referred to as “President X”. I have read that Bill Clinton prefers to be called “President Clinton”.
John Mace, if you look at the cite, you’ll see that the Bill quote came first in the article as if it were said by someone else. The Hillary quote came later, in the same way. I was on my way out to an appointment, and I unfortunately rushed to get the OP posted.
You may be right that it would have been a better thread without the trick.
Make that “persistently lying, dishonourable sack of shit”.
You were in an hurry, and so “accidently” posted innacurate information. I thought it was all a deliberate experiment?
Either way, an outright apology to all concerned and a promise to repeat would be more appropriate than this weaseling.
And you are still lying. Peruse these headlines:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,461824,00.html
http://www1.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/01/clinton.jury.duty.ap/
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/news/2001/clinton_race_062801.htm
http://www.aegis.com/news/usis/2001/US010410.html
Notice any particular adjective in front of the words “President Clinton”? Will you persist with this latest lie?
Because Collounsbury was a liberal and December is a conservative. Is that what you wanted to hear?
What he did was a practical joke, and like all such jokes, it left humorless people angry and upset that their panties were pulled down in front of everyone. If the roles were reversed, I imagine the liberals would be celebrating what a clever point they had made against the conservatives — such is the nature of the thing.
Did Gaudere overreact? Yes, in my opinion. Did she react as might be expected? Again, yes. Might she rationalize how her bias had no effect on her decision? More than likely. But the conservatives here have to finally realize that this is a board controlled substantially by atheist liberals, and its policies and practices will reflect that. If you want to avoid curse flung at God, or if you want to avoid a pile-on from knee-jawed liberals, this ain’t the place to be.
E.g.:
E.g.,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0822/p11s02-cods.html
Note that William Perry is referred to as “Defence Secretary” although he no longer holds that office.
You’re the expert in logic Lib.
-
“this is a board controlled substantially by atheist liberals, and its policies and practices will reflect that”
-
“[Tell me again why Collunsbury got banned but december is still here?] Because Collounsbury was a liberal and December is a conservative. Is that what you wanted to hear?”
Non sequitur much? Idiot.
Libertarian - I admit when I read the thread I thought the idea of the joke was kind of funny.
I also thought of the thread about Al Franken - a lot of people defended Franken, saying it was a practical joke that he pulled on Ashcroft. December basically did the same thing Franken did - a tricky lie designed to get someone to say something embarassing. I was actually surprised that the same people who defended Franken attacked December.
Perhaps most amusingly, December was one of the people who attacked Franken for the practical joke. And then he went and did the same thing. I doubt he even notices the hypocrisy in that, though.
So I guess both sides lost their credibility.
However, you seem to be missing a little thing called context.
Personally, I think statements must be held to a higher standard if they are used as the justification for war. Do you agree?
Clinton did not start a war justified by the quotes. That is a HUGE difference between him and Bush, that some people seem eager to ignore.
And that is why is it in fact very reasonable and logical to hold Bush’s justifications of the war to a higher standard than Clinton’s statements that were not used to justify a war.
The interesting question is: Should not Bush himself hold his justification for a war to a higher standard than Clinton holds a quote that had no big effect?
Hell, yeah, the Clintons are liars. Big fucking news flash, there. But they didn’t invade Iraq unilaterally on false pretenses. THAT’s what I am mad about.
I really don’t see how biting on this little joke is such a big deal. If you look at the scenario (quotes that sound like what Bush has said about Iraq, but made by the Clintons).
I and others, believing that it was a justification for the Iraq war ala Bush, responded in opposition. I am opposed to the nature of our invasion of Iraq (trumped up pretenses, unilateralism). These quotes sound like they are justifying the invasion, but in fact are simply saying “Saddam is a bad man, he’s up to no good”. That I don’t disagree with. Nor do I disagree that Saddam needed to be dealt with.
But I totally disagree with the way this was pursued, and I dislike this administration’s approach to foreign policy in general. If Clinton had done this, I would have disagreed with him as well.
I am not in lockstep with any political party or ideology, I just care about how we conduct ourselves in this world, and I am not pleased right now.
I see that you persist in the lie. Here’s your quote, including the paragraph that precedes it:
The bolded portion puts the references to “Defense Secretary William Perry” and “President Clinton” into appropriate perspective - those were their titles at the time. You have yet to justify you statement:
One cite from a sports reporter can in no way justify the "Former politicians are generally referred to with the name of the highest office they have ever held. Ex-Presidents are generally referred to as “President X” statement. My cites show that your statement that they are generally referred to as such is false.
You know that it’s false. You lie, with full knowledge that you are telling deliberate lies.
Attack Clinton ever again with a straight face.
Remember when Clinton said, “I didn’t have sex with that woman – Ms. Lewinsky”? He wouldn’t have been impeached if four hours later he had announced that he did have sex with her, and had just been playing a joke on us.
And that’s how the history books will tell the story in your alternate universe: “The Republicans not being out for Clinton’s head for over 6 years, the whole episode was then forgotten”.
And your behavior falls clearly under number 2. In any many ways.
In any event, having repeatedly ducked the issue of Republican’s denouncing the bombing of Iraq and Al Queda under the Clinton as treasonous “wagging the dog” even though proper Cites were provided and quotes were properly attributed to the correct parties- you now see fit to stoop even lower.
And after being caught red handed you attempts at spin control would even put William Clinton to shame. It is amusing to see in your blind partisen hatred you have become the very thing you rail against. Its all quite amusing, although its a minor pity you are too stupid to enjoy the irony. Still, watching the possibly final meltdown of a tiresome one trick pony will have to be joy enough I suppose.
Here is the question our clueless friend keeps ducking:
text:
Speaking of apologies- when Clinton bombed Iraq various high ranking Republicans claimed he was “wagging the dog” and we shouldn’t have bombed them or Al Queda. Seeing Bush later invaded Iraq even though nothing changed but the health of the economy, I am expecting those apologies to Clinton and the American people any day now.
Cites:
http://slate.msn.com/id/11384/
quote:
-
Overt Cynicism. The politician accuses Clinton of wagging the dog. Example: “It is obvious that he is doing this for political reasons” (Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.).
-
Cynicism by innuendo. The accuser phrases the dog-wagging charge obliquely so that he can deny having made it. Example: “We have had either hostilities or threatened hostilities at interesting times throughout the last year” (incoming House Speaker Bob Livingston).
-
Backhanded cynicism. The accuser implies dog-wagging by saying either a) he can’t bring himself to believe Clinton would wag the dog; or b) the White House has assured him it’s not so. Example: “While I have been assured by administration officials that there is no connection with the impeachment process … **oth the timing and the policy are subject to question” (Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott).
http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm
http://www.conservativeusa.org/iraq-war.htm
Feel the Irony-- feel it:
quote:
There are at least ten reasons why America should not now make war on Iraq, even if it were certain that such an effort would be “successful”:
-
President William J. Clinton lacks the moral authority to function properly as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States.
-
Let’s not change the subject. The Number One business of the nation at this time should be the removal from office of William J. Clinton.
-
It is unconstitutional for America to go to war without a Congressional declaration of war.
-
Given the present set of facts, there is no Constitutional predicate on the basis of which Congress has the authority to initiate war, even with a declaration of war.
…
-
The strategic position of the United States in the world may be diminished, rather than enhanced, by an attack on Iraq. Many regimes friendly to the United States will be placed at severe risk if they are seen to assist, or even favor, the U.S. attack.
-
If we “succeed”, what have we gained? If we don’t begin a war, what have we lost?
-
War has consequences which are often unintended and almost always beyond comprehensive anticipation. If we and our “allies” join to attack Iraq, Iraq and its allies may combine to attack us in ways which cannot be fully foreseen. How many planes will crash? How many water supplies will be polluted? How many nuclear weapons will be detonated? How many civilian targets will be made subject to terrorist assault? Will chemical weapons be deployed?
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1999/mar99/psrmar99.html
quote:
First, it’s a “wag the dog” public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the “life is truer than fiction” movie Wag the Dog. The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to “move on” from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-American command.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...ision082198.htm
quote:
The White House yesterday asserted that Clinton’s decision to bomb suspected terrorist installations was in no way linked to or affected by the Lewinsky controversy. At a minimum, however, the response to Clinton’s action showed how his legal and personal problems have altered the prism through which his presidential decisions are viewed.
Several Republicans yesterday raised the issue expressly. Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) said: “After months of lies and deceit and manipulations and deceptions – stonewalling – it raised into doubt everything he does and everything he says,” Coats said.
Administration officials said yesterday they had anticipated criticism that Clinton was following a “Wag the Dog” strategy – so-named after the recent movie in which a president tries to draw attention away from a sexual scandal by staging a phony war – but had no choice but to ignore it.
The same speculation arose last February made when Clinton contemplated military action against Iraq.
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/12/cov_17newsb.html
quote:
In a speech to the nation, President Clinton defended his attack on Iraq, saying a “strong, sustained series of airstrikes” against Iraq was necessary to punish Saddam Hussein for his refusal to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors. Only minutes into “Operation Desert Fox,” Republicans were crying “Wag the Dog.” Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., joined other leading Republicans in claiming he could not support the attack because he couldn’t be sure it wasn’t politically motivated, although Lott had been briefed three weeks ago about the possibility of an attack if Saddam defied the United Nations.
And I wonder what a search of “wag the dog” would bring up here. Seeing Al Queda and Iraq are now deemed such critical threats, and alledge non-complance with UN resolutions are now ground for an invasion versus missle strikes and am sure all those Republicans will now apologize for their treasonous(1) political outbursts.
(1) irony fully intended.
More ironic based on the last major mistake our dimwitted firend tried to spin control his way out of:
But I expect you to duck this as well, or try some other Clinton-esce response.
:rolleyes: