[ktw]

Originally Posted by BioHazzard

From the reader's review of Amazon.com: Legacy : Paying the Price for the Clinton Years: Books: Rich Lowry

"....Lowry has obviously read a ton of books about Clinton - he knows the inside story on pretty much any Clinton issue or scandal.
Think Clinton was responsible for the booming economy of the 1990s? Nope - the recover was underway before he even was elected. Think he erased the deficit? Wrong - gushing tax revenues did that, and a Republican Congress that imposed a slim veneer of fiscal discipline. Think he was serious about "reforming welfare as we know it?" Think again - he signed that bill only because he thought it was necessary for his reelection, and then he vowed to supporters that he'd fix it, though he never did. Think he was an innocent victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy? Hah - he brought all his troubles on himself and has no one else to blame. Think he was tough on crime? Hardly - he nominated a clueless Janet Reno attorney general, the Queen of the Bunny Planet. Think he helped bring peace to the Middle East? Not even close - he strengthened Arafat, whose refusal to accept generous concessions from Israel led to the current bloodshed. Think he cared about the people of Africa? Not so fast - he not only did nothing to stop the genocide in Rwanda, his administration actively opposed any UN effort to send more troops there.
What's most effective about Lowry's indictments are his temperament and sources. No rabid Clinton-hater (not, of course, that there's anything wrong with that), his tone is more of a sober, serious, and grown-up accounting of all that was wrong with Clinton and his presidency. It's not an hysterical, rabid, slobbering at the mouth rant. And his best digs come from Clinton sympathizers and former employees, which lends even more legitimacy to the book.
After reading this, it's fairly obvious that for a man who worked long hours into the night, Clinton was a lazy president - he preferred talking about tough issues to actually doing something about them. He avoided any action, no matter how justified, necessary, or right, that he thought might cost him a dip in the polls, while taking action only on issues that he thought would help him politically, or were just easier, like school uniforms and the V-chip.
Because of that, one could almost conclude Clinton was an inconsequential president, except for one major issue: terrorism. By treating it as a law enforcement issue, he essentially washed his hands of it and left it to the Justice Department to track down terrorists, a task for which the department was not prepared. As a result, Osama and his cohorts had free rein to kill Americans all over the world, until finally the country woke up to the war we were in on September 11, 2001. Clinton knew Osama was a threat, yet other than bombing empty buildings and deserted training camps, he did nothing. That would be difficult, you see, a distraction from his important work of pardoning rich fugitives and getting Hillary elected to the Senate.
It was often said that Clinton lacked core convictions, but Lowry shows he did indeed have those. What he lacked was the courage to act on them unless they were politically expedient.
As for the writing, it's excellent. Fluid, interesting, easy to understand, and leavened with light touches of humor. For a political book, it's enjoyable reading.
Lowry understands Clinton. If you are willing and able to do the same, then read this book. You'll be the better for it...."

Don't tell me you are trusting some random readers opinion on a global bookstore. Do you really believe everything you see on the internet? If so you have some work to do buddy.

[BioHazzard]

Originally Posted by ktw

Don't tell me you are trusting some random readers opinion on a global bookstore. Do you really believe everything you see on the internet? If so you have some work to do buddy.

1. Don't worry about me.

2. Read other reviewers' opinions.

3. Why don't you go read the book and tell us what you think then?

4. Go ahead and rebutt the facts reported in those books.

[BioHazzard]

Originally Posted by ktw

Yes, apparently law professors at Georgetown and GWU know nothing!

All of those books are written by pundits, people no better than Bill O'Reilly or the kids that made the 9/11 hoax video.

Clinton had Chinese nationals sleep in the White House, that is the extent of it.

I asked the staffers if they had heard anything about that, they looked it up on Thomas (Library of Congress site) which has the Congressional Records for nearly every year, nothing came up.

'The newspaper'. Way to narrow it down buddy, it makes a big difference what paper it was in and who wrote it. You can't compare the Washington Post to the Washington Times. Also a funny sidenote, a CIA analyst for Iran gave a presentation to my program, an interesting note she made was that nothing sensative or comprimising ever makes the news, which is what you're claiming happened. I mean either the world is a hoax or your inaccurate pundit books are just a great source of information that is undiscovered to dozens of people that work in DC for the past 15 years.

Give me a break buddy, this is ridiculous. You need to realize the agenda of all of those books, and most pundits in general. Just because someone can fill a few hundred pages with a steaming pile of b/s does not mean it's true.

It should not be hard to dig this up if it was so obvious and in all of the newspapers.

Also, to get into any secure area of the State Department requires an intense background check and security clearance. Also, what the hell do the Russians have to gain by going there, they would definately be more smart to plant bugs in the CIA where the actual analysts that advise the President work.

Cool, someone copied a warhead design. Most of our older designs have been public for years, do you honestly believe that technology is cutting edge if China could produce it? Have you never paid attention to military technology in general. Anything that is public is at least 25 years old, if not more, not to mention that our highest level of technology is not just easily broadcasted in DC, it is kept secret at bases across the country, one that you might have heard of is known as Area 51. Honestly, none of our enemies have been able to develop the surveillance technology we had before the SR-71 went up in the air, let alone our best warhead design.

I feel charitable tonight. So I did your homework for ya.

1. Al Gore's taking money from Chinese scum operatives.
Salon Politics2000 | Smoke and mirrors

Washingtonpost.com: Campaign Finance Special Report

Washingtonpost.com: Campaign Finance Special Report

2. States Department Spy scandal
KGB Spy Gusev PNG'd: Dec 8, 1999
Russia Indignant Over U.S. 'Spy' Expulsion


3. Chinese stealing nuclear war head design
NucNews-US 8/24/99 (Scroll to the near bottom)

China May Have Stolen Nuke Secrets - Los Alamos

CNN.com - Senate hearing examines loss of nuclear secrets at Los Alamos lab - June 14, 2000


Sobering Senate Hearing on National Labs Espionage


Democracy Now! | Nnsa, Los Alamos and Nuclear Safety

Soooo.... hoax you said?

May be the George whatever hell profs need a sabbatica to clear their memory cluster****.....

P.S. Before you resort to the left wing extremists' favourite play book, may be you should do some background research on the author of Dereliction of Duty. It makes you look foolish and ill-informed to make such blanket statement as to call them all 'pundits'. If you have done your homework and read the readers' reviews of those works, you would have come across a near universal admission by the critics that, irrespective of the political inclination of the authors, the FACTS they uncovered, are irrefutable.

Instead of doing your homework and speaking about the facts, you resort to pulling spin. That is rather disappointing.


P.S. I dug out some info (hardly exclusive nor extensive, just some pointers) to point you towards the right direction for your research, because I thought you were interested in learning. If you don't, then I don't really give a rat's behind. I don't give a sh1t about convincing you or anybody, about anything. What anyone chooses to believe in, means **** sht to me. lol It is your life, not mine.

If you want to believe none of the stuffs I mentioned have actually happened, well then don't. lol What difference will that make, whether you accept them or not? Do you think ther real world will stop working?

[ktw]

Sorry man, plenty of time doing other reasearch for my job, which believe it or not is in the political realm.

Other than the nuke story, the other sources are false.

I am not left-wing, nor have I ever been. I am simply a realist who seeks the most unbiased information which I use to formulate my own views.

This conversation is pointless, we will all continue to believe what we will, thanks for the time to find the links, I will look for the hearing the Thomas database tomorrow and read the testimony to see what was actually said, that way I do not have to rely on CNN.

What about what I said was Spin? Is this the classic b/s O Reilly argument? Please do not tell me you get any political information from that sh1twad. Authors with a political agenda aimed at defaming the other party so they look better are pundits. People like Samuel Huntington, research professors, are not pundits.

As for the professors, you should check school rankings, those are two of the best schools in the country at which one could get a JD, MPP, or PHD in Political Science. If their staff isn't up to date, our higher education system is completely butt****ed.

Have you ever attended a hearing before? I laugh if you really believe the questions proposed are devoid of party or personal influence. ****, I've seen John Mica speak about blatant lies for hours, blabber about bad security diagrams that never meant **** for 3 hours, I've seen other Senators make comments that are completely off base, and are conflicted by testimony and empirical evidence. The findings of the committee are what matters, not the description of the proceedings. Hell, most members NEVER, I repeat NEVER show up for any hearings at all. I know my elected rep. has not attended a hearing on either of her committees all summer, so what does that say about the thoroughness and bias of the hearing process. I am not saying that the link you sent did not happen or anything like that, but you need to realize real spin when it's staring you in the face. I remember hearing about the hard drives, but the CNN article mentions nothing of the Chinese warheads that came from them. Furthermore another good question is WHAT THE HELL DOES CLINTON HAVE TO DO WITH DUMBASS EMPLOYEES AND CRAPPY SECURITY GUARDS? DO you think he sits around all day and plans the security programs for Los Alamos. I hope not, the thought of that even being true is a joke in itself. It is one thing to blame those accountable and another to blame the President because he happened to preside over the nation at that time. ****, same thing could have happened under any President, funny that you would, as you say it, "spin" it to try and make a case against Clinton.

As I said I am done, we are both too stubborn to move away from our viewpoints.

Next time you engage in political conversation, do not judge a person's ideology by their position on 3 events that happened in history, that is a really poor way to pigeonhole an individual, a common tactic of those who use spin tactics to the fullest.

[BioHazzard]

O/T While I was googling just now, I came across this interesting article. Thought people might be interested.

Soviet Spymaster Kalugin on Bush, Gore, Reagan, Nixon, Saddam, Putin, CIA, China

"....A: I was interviewed by a major Russian newspaper two weeks ago, Commerzant. The first question was, “Why do you hate America?” I said, “I love America.” They asked, “How come everyone hates America?” I said: “Because of their ignorance. They do not know America and American history, or they may be envious. Envy and ignorance create hostility.” (Note: )

I said: “America has created a society which may be the model for the world. It’s not perfect; you have all the contradictions and conflicts. But it’s allowed millions of people of all beliefs and religious views to come together and live in peace, and created a powerful and viable America.” ..."

"...Q: Do you have any regrets about your life as a spy?

A: No, none. I did my job well. I never cheated. I seriously served a cause I believed in. … I believed in communism. It was based on the best economic and philosophical theories. It was essentially rooted in Christianity, social justice, brotherhood, love of people, equality and freedom.

It turned out to be all slogans. It was discredited by a bloody and brutal and cheating [leadership]...."

[ktw]

that was an interesting read, i agree with him on the second to last question, we will never be perfect, but we manage to do it better than anyone else.

[Iron Warrior]

Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00

Oh....McCain....if there is anybody I hate more than hillary clinton, its john mccain. That guy will be the death of america if he is president. talk about a people pleasin son of a b1tch. he flip flops like john kerry during a seizure.

i'll never get over him taunting the americna people regarding the immigration debate offering any american citizen $50/hr to pick strawberries and saying we still wouldn't do it. that quote will never die. if he runs, it will be teh death of him.....i'm very glad he said it, otherwise, i think he may have a chance.

Not only that, but he has a hard on for steroids and is too worried about about which athletes are using steroids. This guy will be too concerned with non-issues and ignore real issues like education, economic growth, lowering taxes, addressing illegal immigration, Islamic jihadists, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, being tough on criminals, especially child molesters/rapists, and anything else I left off.

I heard about that quote too and I simply can't understand why he would basically offend all American citizens, which are also the people who can legally vote. I hope he enjoys the lime-light while he can, maybe we will only get to see his sorry azz whenever the media creates another anti-steroid campaign.

[ktw]

You should probably read about his ideology a little bit more, he covers all of the areas you mentioned.

Also, in the Senate there is only a certain amount of work one Senator is allowed to do. If McCain gets assigned to some lame issue that no one cares about it through one of his committees, it is still his job to adress it in a manner that he sees fit. **** I had to listen to Trent Lott debate about grain elevators in North Dakota for 3 hours once, guarantee that it's not important to the masses, but it's still part of his job. McCain also has well published views on the war, national defense, etc. Also, I do not know how much you know about foreign intelligence, but every single President gets briefed by the CIA on a daily basis about emerging crisis', so it would be impossible for him not to pay attention to and address prominent foreign affairs issues.

Also, do you really think it would be a smart move for the Republicans to nominate anyone more right or as far right as Bush? Think long-term strategy. If the Republicans want to keep control of the executive branch they have to elect a candidate that can work with both parties to aggregate effective legislation and gain a better-than-Bush level of sustainable public approval. If they elected anyone as far right as Bush they might please their conservative fan base and lose their more moderate constituants.

I know there are people in this thread that are probably Bush admin. supporters, do not take this as criticism of Bush, it's just simple strategy, there have been too many errors in the past 6 years for voters to respond to, electing a Bush-like official would kill election hopes in 2012 or 2016. There is a trade-off to be made and obviously they know this. Why do you think McCain has been meeting with Karl Rove and Bush's staff on a near daily basis? It's fairly obvious that he is part of the GOP's strategy to maintain power in that branch, and even if you are a Republican non-McCain supporter that is of interest to you. The Senate and House are slightly different, but a lot of smaller states in 2006 could change the majority position around, which would also be a major roadbump for the GOP.

Right now I do not know why anyone is even focused on 08. 06 is just as important and is less than 6 months away, a Democratic House, Senate, or Congress could be a very bad for the Republican Party, I hope they do not manage to sway the majority in their favor.

We all learned from Howard Dean that candidates who campaign too early have nowhere to go but down. McCain could not afford this if he were to run, he already has the roadblock of being a Senator, not a good position for moving up to the Executive position. I will bet you all good amounts of money that if McCain runs in 08, he will wait to start a full force campaign and will whistling a far different tune than in his 2000 run, he needs the GOP right now and they could definately use him to win over the more moderate fringe of their party.

What do you guys think of the possibility of Bill Frist running? Or Governor Allen?:

[kwyckemynd00]

rudy, rudy, rudy! haha

anybody who can take on the streets of NY, make a difference, and then have the balls to publically call his ex-wife names and not back down has my vote for president.

Not politically correct - check
Not afraid to stand up against human trash - check

The rest is irrelevant. At this point, we simply need a leader the american people can look up to. without a leader of some sort....we're screwed.

[ktw]

NY still smells like piss and garbage though...

j/k
As long as it isn't Hillary, Obama, Feingold or any of the other people the left has mentioned so far then I'm probably able to somewhat support em.

[Spartan117]

Originally Posted by BioHazzard

The fact that the Dems have to bring up this know-nothing, rookie political hack, is a testimony to how intellectually and morally bankrupt the Democrat party has become. They got no credible candidate left in the party. All the Blue Dog Democrates have been circumcised and strangulated to death. It is a party of lunatics, moral degenerates, hypocrites, dinosaurs and yellow dog Democrates. Collin Powell is damn right when he said the Dems are intellectually and morally bankrupt.

It is a damn shame that the Republic does not have a credible opposition. It is unhealthy for a democracy.

Sounds like you just described the republican party as well. Obama may one day be a candidate, but not 2008. Senators do not fare well in pres. campaigns. Govenors are the ones that get elected.

[ktw]

Yah I already said that about 4 times in the thread....

Obama will never be elected, he might run but that will be stupid for the Dems and he will not win a campaign unless he develops a thorough platform between now and then and stops the Democratic rhetoric of "The Right sucks but we don't have anything to counteract them so we will just ***** about how awful they are all day."

[Doko]

I'd vote Eisenhower at a time like this, were he still kickin'.

[blazinred]

Originally Posted by ktw

NY still smells like piss and garbage though...

j/k
As long as it isn't Hillary, Obama, Feingold or any of the other people the left has mentioned so far then I'm probably able to somewhat support em.

curious, what is so wrong with feingold? I know everyone has something to say and should have that right, but what informed your decision on not liking him?

[ktw]

His attempt to censure the President shows his inadequacy to interpret law in an appropriate manner, despite a degree from Harvard. I guess law is open to interpretation, but this is just a stunt, if he has any intelligence then he should know that it has no chance of success and that he is ruining any credibility he has with the moderates. Also his positions on nearly any policy are very far left, it's not so much I like him, but that he won't win if the Dems nominate him, he's just as partisan as anyone on the far right. His past history of supporting loser candidates in elections also shows that he will not be able to make a successful run at the office. Seriously, what moron supports a Ted Kennedy run for office? Like most people on the Left, I think he makes a lot of conflictual statements. Also, he always cites Wisconsin in his rhetoric and speeches as being a gold mine of forward thinking people and often finds a way to talk about it like it is the foremost political thinktank in the nation. Lastly, he is a money waster. Spending taxpayer money on a commission to investigate the imprisonment of 3,000 Italians during WW2 so 'their story can be told'? Give me a break. If they want it to be told they can do their own telling, write a damn book, who cares, just as long as public money isn't going to it. There are better things to do with your time.

Another thing that pisses me off is that he voted no on air strikes over Kosovo. Do not even get me started on how stupid of a decision this is. Should we allow people to commit genocide and racial cleansing to maintain power? Say what you want about our involvement in foreign nations, but most members of both parties agree that the attacks were successful and justified, and I think most rational citizens would agree as well.

You want to know what I really hate about him:
His opinions on free-trade policy. This man, if he became elected, would stunt our participation in the global marketplace, at a time when China is liberalizing its economic policy and catching up to us in terms of power and GDP. Also he banned free-trade to the third world. Do you think this is good, a man that has a forward thinking economic policy? No, it's someone who is self-interested and has no solid fiscal plan for our country.

I like his stance on Civil Rights, actually, I like it a lot, but I can not live with someone that is that much of a fiscal Nazi.

I do not like his opinions on gun control.

I think his ideas on energy policy are impractical, they will not happen. Just a bunch of empty promises that he has no control over and will not be able to fulfill. I support the increase of alternative energy usage (nuclear, wind, solar, etc.) and he is against the idea of using nuclear power, something I think a lot of Democrats really have wrong. I do like his vote to not require ethanol to be in gasoline.

Do you want me to keep going?