(Split thread) Criticism of Clinton's administration

[BeAChooser]

In the Libby case, Cheney claimed the authority to unclassify secrets.

Apparently correct.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040601806.html "Legal experts say that President Bush had the unquestionable authority to approve the disclosure of secret CIA information to reporters ... snip ... Experts said the power to classify and declassify documents in the federal government flows from the president and is often delegated down the chain of command. In March 2003, Bush signed an executive order delegating declassification authority to Cheney."

But on the producing propaganda for domestic consumption, clear legal violations occurred. If there wasn't a law that prohibited sending covert operatives to feed propaganda to the press, don't you think there should be?

Don't you think there should be a law prohibiting democrat operatives from feeding propaganda to the press? I do. We could start with their lies about the war.

We are a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. They have the force of law.

Darn. If we could only get the terrorists you seem to want to coddle to understand that. :rolleyes:

We haven't even gotten into disregard for separation of powers by refusing to enforce Congressional mandates and laws. The Supreme court has ruled that line item vetos are unconstitutional.

Just curious, did you complain when a Republican Congress gave Bill Clinton the line item veto and he used it several times?

Then you have the corrupt political appointments and the attempt to subvert the Department of Justice.

This? Coming from someone who I suspect supported the Clinton administration? Do I detect a whiff of hypocrisy?

Again, do you believe the law allows the President to use the DoJ for political purposes?

Do you? Because that's exactly what the Clinton administration did for years and I don't recall democrats complaining. :D

Which brings up the use of the GAO and other budget powers for overt political campaigning. Even the Peace Corp was used to promote the Republican Party.

At least the Republicans haven't been proven to have used money from Communist China ... like the democrats did. :)

Oh, and it was illegal for the White House to use the Republican Party email system. There is a law that says they cannot destroy the public record.

I guess Republicans just thought they could get away with doing it because democrats did it in spades during the Clinton years. Remember? Several witnesses — White House computer contract workers from Northrop Grumman — testified that the missing e-mails (there were hundreds of thousands of them) might include messages with potentially damaging information about the Lewinsky investigation, DNC foreign-money contributions, "Filegate," and myriad other Clinton-Gore scandals. They also testified that Clinton administration officials threatened them when they discovered there was a problem with the email record. And democrats could have cared less.

There really is a long list of specific violations of real laws.

So were there in the Clinton years. But democrats did nothing. In fact, they obstructed all efforts to investigate the crimes. Like I said ... do I detect a hint of hypocrisy in the air?

Oh ... and by the way ... at least the Republicans did all the above in pursuit of a policy that would protect Americans from terrorists (rather than just pure greed and political power which is what motivated the democrats during the Clinton years). And so far, the Republicans have been successful in protecting the public. No terrorist attacks in the US in 7 years. Who would have imagined that would be the case right after 9/11. :D

[BeAChooser]

What will happen is future presidents will be emboldened by Bush's actions and will feel free to engage in the same acts, if not even worse acts without fear of punishment.

Gee ... I said that same question back during the Clinton years. And few cared. And nary a democrat. :D

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Gee ... I said that same question back during the Clinton years. And few cared. And nary a democrat. :D

This is why that which is described IS the natural progression of government.

:gnome:

[BeAChooser]

You would love to compare a relentless campaign to get Clinton which resulted in entrapping him to lie abut cheating on his wife to the Bush crimes.

That is not all he lied about, skeptigirl, nor all the crimes Clinton and his administration committed. And you know it. (sniff. sniff. H? :D)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That is not all he lied about, skeptigirl, nor all the crimes Clinton and his administration committed. And you know it. (sniff. sniff. H? :D)

There were those elderly retirees that they stole from in the land scam.

:jaw-dropp

[kallsop]

A discussion of the prewar intelligence and who said what will be interesting to say the least.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a illicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


Now you know why this impeachment circus is a non starter. The whole "Bush lied" woo woo has too many democrats in the line of fire.

[KoihimeNakamura]

As a note: The war is not illegal. I've gone over it before, but there's a Joint Resolution Authorizing the Act of Force, and per War Powers Act, that's equivalent to a declaration of war.

Hwever.


Oh ... and by the way ... at least the Republicans did all the above in pursuit of a policy that would protect Americans from terrorists (rather than just pure greed and political power which is what motivated the democrats during the Clinton years). And so far, the Republicans have been successful in protecting the public. No terrorist attacks in the US in 7 years. Who would have imagined that would be the case right after 9/11. :biggrin:



That could easily just be a statistical fluke of the fact WE'RE ENFORCING PRE 9/11 security better. Just a thought.

[Skeptic Ginger]

This thread appears to be mixing both topics. You'll have to separate out the stuff that applies to the other thread, BeAC. Sorry. I'll post about the initial comment (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3768217#post3768217) here and that's it. This crap doesn't interest me because it has been discussed ad nauseum already.

The comment in question was, Turley had an opinion on Clinton's impeachment as well as an opinion on Bush's. So what? How is his opinion on a different matter relative to his opinion here? Is there a post somewhere where I said this guy was unqualified? I doubt it since I don't recall hearing about him before the Olbermann piece.

Is there some reason one must agree with everything someone says to conclude they have expertise? I don't think so.

And I don't think the technicality that Clinton committed perjury in a Grand Jury proceeding is false. The issue in Clinton's case was, do we go around impeaching Presidents on this kind of technicality? That's absurd. And perjury in divorce cases which lying about an affair is on par with, is rarely prosecuted.

And before anyone starts to rehash the 'poor Paula Jones had rights' bull crap, she was paid a couple hundred thousand dollars by some Republicans to bring the lawsuit in the first place about some perceived harm from 2 years prior that she didn't complain about at the time. It's been thoroughly discussed on this board already.

I am now unsubscribing to this thread. You are free to Clinton bash all you want. As far as I am concerned, there is no reason to rehash this because as I said, it has been discussed already, ad nauseum.