Clinton criticizes GWB regularly
Over at a BlogDecatur post about the Fox News interview with WJClinton, a commenter seems incredulous regarding my statement about one of WJC's blatant lies during the interview. He seems to think that Clinton didn't begin criticizing this administration until this interview. He asked for proof. Here is a small portion of a simple Google search that lists just a few of the times that WJC has criticized GWB and the current administration:
January 24, 2003
Clinton Criticizes Bush Tax Cut
April 16, 2003
Former U.S. President Bill Clinton stoked rumors that he is looking for a nomination to head the United Nations again this week with comments bashing President George bush's 'isolationist' foreign policy.
April 29, 2005
Clinton Criticizes Bush Energy Bill
PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Former President Clinton lashed out at the Bush administration's energy policies Friday, criticizing them as "dumb economics" during a wide-ranging speech to a friendly crowd at Brown University.
September 2005
Breaking with tradition under which US presidents mute criticisms of their successors, Clinton said the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq "virtually alone and before UN inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction."
September 19, 2005
Clinton blasts disaster planning
HE SAYS EFFORT FAILED TO ACCOUNT FOR POOR
Labels: Bill Clinton, George Bush
posted by VPCheney @ 11:08 AM
13 comments
13 Comments:
Nothing but net.
VP Cheney, you are as despicably disingenuous as ever, and lincolnrepublican is your lapdog, as always.
When you tried to make the point; 'the most blatant lie' of Clinton's this way:
"The most blatant lie was when he said he's not criticized President Bush in the past."
You knew that Clinton's comment of having 'not criticized President Bush' was in the context of the hunt for bin Laden and his henchmen for their terrorist activities, and not your straw-issue references on the post to which this is a comment, ‘in the past’.
If you didn't know, then you ARE as ignorant as I have always suspected (lr, too). BTW, Clinton never used the phrase 'in the past' in this pertinent context. That is really low, but hey, you are a Bush supporter.
Clinton's pertinent comment in the interview with Chris Wallace, which you skewed to accidentally expose how brazen of a liar you are is just below.
CLINTON: What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him.
Now, I've never criticized President Bush, and I don't think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only one-seventh as important as Iraq.
And you ask me about terror and Al Qaida with that sort of dismissive thing? When all you have to do is read Richard Clarke's book to look at what we did in a comprehensive, systematic way to try to protect the country against terror.
Your thoroughly disgusting lies and misdirection are the practices of the entire Bush administration and its supporters.
Nothin’ but shit, to paraphrase a enabler of yours.
PS
Just for grins, you and your ilk ought to read this. And Bush is someone you admire and defend. That figures.
Yes, I admire and respect our President. I DO NOT admire nor respect Keith Olberman. Considering that his cable show is dead last in the ratings, I'm obviously not the only one to feel that Olberman is a liberal hack.
Tony Blair was also called a lap dog by liberals, so by that measure, LR is in good company.
Clinton's comment was what it was.
"Now, I've never criticized President Bush, and I don't think this is useful."
What part of NEVER means only in regard to the subject of OBL? If he didn't think it was "politically useful," to critisize GWB, then why did he go on such a tirade of critisism? (I added the unspoken "politically" to the comment.) Of course it was politically useful for the ex-pres to rally the liberals, through his seemingly unbridled personal anger.
He put on another good show for the libs. I think they even believe him again. Will they ever learn?
VP Cheney,
What can I say but nice try? Your riposte is pathetic, and exposes your lack of intellectual honesty.
That you don't admire Keith Olbermann is another straw-issue of yours to ignore the facts KO presented.
And as part of your rebuttal to my lapdog-observation you come up with this;
"Tony Blair was also called a lap dog by liberals, so by that measure, LR is in good company." Only another lapdog could come up with that rejoinder. Jeez.
And you still don't get the fact that Clinton's 'never' word was in the context of OBL, and terror. You may fool your ignorant fellow republicans with your evasive semantics, but not me. Do you even know what 'context' means, you moron?
You are extremely tedious.
Bill
PS
What is with your time-stamp 'time'? It certainly reflects your attention-to-detail-style, I must say.
What is tedious is decrypting the real meaning of anything WJC says. Context is important, so knowing (guessing) WHY he says something is just as important as what he seems to be saying.
Does calling someone an ignorant, despicably disingenuous lapdog, brazen liar and a moron make you feel superior?
Are insults the only way the left thinks they can win or neutralize a debate? Isn't there more than the negativity that overshadows all discussion of the issues?
Olberman made a presentation. You say it was factual. Maybe. Anyone can make a presentation of facts to persuade or distract, to lie and misdirect, to tell it like they see it. Some see things more clearly. KO sees all through a fog of hatred toward this administration. Someone (KO) who clearly hates someone they are reporting on, (Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld) is not the ideal clear viewpoint I'm interested in spending time evaluating. Negativism is tedious.
VP Cheney,
Again with the straw-issues? Enough, already.
How long is Denny Hastert going to make a mockery of your type of conservatism, do you think?
Bill
bill = Matt Jackson
You can tell by the mispelingz.
ARF ARF ARF!
George,
Bill = Matt Jackson; misspellings?
That is laughable. I don’t even know Matt Jackson, but I know who he is.
Hell, you probably know me yourself.
What are the words that are misspelled like Matt misspelled?
George = VP Cheney and his soiled, oops, solid logic, Brad Goodrich, Bill Mitchell, et cetera.
Good boy George; misdirecting from facts you cannot refute, a third lapdog. And honestly, that is all you Macon County republicans have. Nothin' but shit.
Why don't we all draw the same sanity-determining line in the sand, and acknowledge which side of that line we are on?
I suggest the line be whether we believe Hastert's current story about his involvement in the Foley situation.
I will start by saying I do not believe Hastert's current story. I think Hastert knew from Palmer three years ago, and chose to not act to reprimand Foley.
Bill
VP Cheney, lr, george,
None of you have a comment about Hastert's culpability in the Foley affair?
Thought so.
Bill
Hastert knew very little, as the INSTANT MESSAGES were the key in nailing him.
Everyone knew up to that point that Foley was gay, and was looking. That was about it. No one wanted him to be outed as that would not have looked good. No one knew he was cruising for underage kids. No one. Not even Hastert.
You Dems are trying to make this an issue when it's not. Bill Clinton cheated on his wife MANY times, some of his trists were in the oval office, and he lied about it to a Grand Jury, was convicted and disbarred. But he's your hero.
Get a life, Decaturite
MCR,
What took you so long to chime in with your straw issues?
Do you, VP Cheney, lr, and George circle-jerk your 'wagons' every night to avoid the obvious and not read the news of who has informed republican members of Congress and / or Hastert and / or Hastert's staff of the Foley problem for the last six years?
MCR,
I must commend you as the most insidious fool at Solid Logic, so please go look at Blog Decatur, then come back here to stick this in your craw.
Decaturite? What is up with that?
Laughable all ways!
Bill
Bill
"Why don't we all draw the same sanity-determining line in the sand, and acknowledge which side of that line we are on?
I suggest the line be whether we believe Hastert's current story about his involvement in the Foley situation."
I would suggest that belief in a single person's story about anything is a seriously silly place to draw a line of sanity. I presume you mean this as a joke.
There are serious issues we could draw a line on, such as national defense and security, illegal immigration, or even our participation in the U.N.
How about ethics? How many democrats have voluntarily stepped down after a scandal? Most go down kicking and screaming, if at all. Some, like Teddy Kennedy, and Harry Reid have gone on to lead the party now.
Perhaps the Dem party has "lack of ethics" as part of the job description for party leaders?
Post a Comment
<< Home