Skip to comments.Clinton asks Philadelphia crowd: ‘Who wants a president who [lies]....
Posted on 11/06/2012 6:53:49 AM PST by Rummyfan
Campaigning for President Barack Obama in Philadelphia on Monday afternoon, former President Bill Clinton inadvertently struck a note of irony while attempting to criticize Mitt Romneys campaign.
Youre laughing, but who wants a president who will knowingly, repeatedly tell you something he knows is not true? Clinton asked, after discounting a claim in a recent Romney ad that the Obama administrations auto bailout hurt American workers.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Will we never be rid of this POS?
If I were Mr. Semen Stained Dress, I’d be ashamed to show my face in public.
THey say he loves campaiging on behalf of democrat candidates & causes, what they don't mention is his success rate.
I'vwe asked myself that question repeatedly about why anyone would vote for either of the Clintons or the coffee-colored Carter we've been stuck with for four years.
Wouldn’t you think he’d choke on a statement like that?
Wouldn’t you think he’d choke on a statement like that?
1) Clintons own words show his often expressed innate hostility to, and utter contempt for, the core principles of the American founding:
``If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the governments ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees. -- President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993
``The purpose of government is to reign in the rights of the people - Bill Clinton during an interview on MTV in 1993
``We cant be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans that we forget about reality. -- President Bill Clinton, quoted in USA Today, March 11, 1993, Page 2A, ``NRA change: `Omnipotent to powerful by Debbie Howlett
When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly that they would work for the common good, as well as for the individual welfare However, now theres a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say theres too much freedom. When personal freedoms being abused, you have to move to limit it. Bill Clinton, April 19, 1995
2) Clinton inevitably pursued his own political advantage at the expense of American interests and national security. Here is just one of many possible examples:
It is well documented that Clinton and the Democrats took illegal campaign money from groups and individuals tied directly to the Chinese Peoples Republican Army. It is therefore not surprising that In January 1998 Clinton went against the advice of then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Pentagon experts by lifting long-standing restrictions against the export of American satellites to China for launch on Chinese rockets. Not only did he move control over such decisions from the more security-focused State Department to the Commerce Department, but he intervened in a Justice Department investigation of Loral Space & Communications, retroactively enabling Loral to sell critical missile technology to the Chinese. Interestingly enough, Clintons decision was made at the request of Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz, whose earlier $1.3 million campaign donation made him the single biggest contributor to the Democratic election effort.
The result, as stated eloquently by syndicated columnist Linda Bowles, was that the Democrats got money from satellite companies and from Chinese communists; China got supercomputors, advanced production equipment and missile technology; Loral got its satellites launched at bargain basement prices . . . and the transfer of sensitive missile technology gave China [for the first time] the capability of depositing bombs on American cities. Incidentally, Loral ultimately failed to benefit from this permanent injury to Americas security interests: in July 2003, the company filed for bankruptcy protection, and in order to raise cash was forced to sell its most profitable business a fleet of communications satellites orbiting over North America.
3) On two occasions, Clinton used military action for the specific purpose of distracting the American public from the fallout of the Lewinsky affair:
On August 20, three days after Clinton finally admitted publicly to the Lewinsky affair, the news media was poised to focus on that days grand jury testimony by Monica Lewinsky. That same morning, Clinton personally went on national television to gravely announce his bombing of a Sudanese chemical weapons factory, and a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. It was the first time most Americans ever heard the name of Osama bin Laden. The factory bombing in Sudan killed an innocent night watchman, but accomplished little else. It later was proven that the plant was making badly needed pharmaceuticals for people in that poverty-stricken part of the world, but no chemical weapons.
Several months later, the U.S. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, part of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, stated: "...the evidence indicates that the facility had no role whatsoever in chemical weapons development." Kroll Associates, one of the world's most reputable investigative firms, also confirmed that there was no link in any way between the plant and any terrorist organization. As for the Afghanistan bombing, it failed to do any damage at all to bin Laden or his organization. Clintons action was accurately characterized by George W. Bush when he said right after 9-11: "When I take action, Im not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt.
Clintons pointless and murderous military actions did not make Americans safer that day, although they did destroy an innocent life, and for all the good they did certainly could have been delayed in any case. But they did succeed in diverting media attention from Lewinskys grand jury testimony for a 24-hour news cycle, which was the main point. So I guess, they werent a total loss.
On December 16, 1998, on the eve of the scheduled House vote on his impeachment, Bill Clinton launched a surprise bombing attack on Baghdad. As justification for this exploit, he cited the urgent threat that Saddams weapons of mass destruction posed to America, and the need for immediate action. Almost immediately, the House Democrats held a caucus and emerged calling for a delay in the impeachment proceedings. House minority leader Dick Gephardt made a statement: "We obviously should pass a resolution by saying that we stand behind the troops. I would hope that we do not take up impeachment until the hostilities have completely ended."
Conveniently, a delay so near the end of the House term would have caused the vote to be taken up in the next session when the newly elected House membership would be seated with more Democratic representation, thereby improving Clintons chances of dodging impeachment.
The Republicans did, in fact, agree to delay the hearings, but only for a day or two. Amazingly, Clinton ended the bombing raid after only 70 hours -- once it became clear that in spite of the brief delay, the vote would still be held in the current session.
Once the bombing stopped, Clinton touted the effectiveness and importance of the mission. As reported by ABC News : We have inflicted significant damage on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs, on the command structures that direct and protect that capability, and on his military and security infrastructure, he said. Defense secretary William Cohen echoed the point: We estimate that Saddam's missile program has been set back by at least a year.
Whether or not one buys Clintons assessment of that mission, it is difficult to believe that its timing was so critical that it required commencement virtually at the moment the House was scheduled to vote on the impeachment. I think the most reasonable conclusion is that Clinton cynically deployed US military assets and placed military personnel in harms way for purely political reasons.
4) Clintons reckless sexual behavior was a threat to American national security:
Clinton and his supporters have been very effective in persuading large numbers of Americans that the Lewinsky scandal was only about sex. But I see a bigger issue here, because Clinton is on record as saying that he would have done anything to keep knowledge of the Lewinsky affair from becoming public.
To me, that statement raises a very serious question: What if, instead of sending her recorded Lewinsky conversations to Ken Starr, Linda Tripp had instead secretly offered them for sale, say, to the Chinese government? Or to the Russians? Or even to agents of Saddam?
What kind of blackmail leverage would those tapes have provided to a foreign government in dealing with America on sensitive trade, security or military issues? One of the few things Clinton ever said that I believe is that he would have done anything to keep the Lewinsky affair secret. Given his demonstrated track record of selling out American interests for personal or political gain (and there are more examples that I could have cited here), how far would he have gone in compromising Americas real interests in order to protect his own neck when threatened with blackmail?
Pretty far, I believe. Equally distressing is the prospect Clinton might, in fact, have succumbed to foreign black mail on other occasions in order to hide different sexual episodes that ultimately did not become public. There is no way to know, of course, but I prefer presidents for whom such a scenario is not a plausible possibility.
And dont even get me started on the war crime in Kosovo.
Oh, C’mon Man! He didn’t REALLY say that, did he??
You just made me blow my Cheerios on my screen..... thanks. :-(
I thought he was for obama ...
Finger wagging ping.
What a steaming pile of democrat Odungo.
Yep, Mr. Clinton, the chief of liars. He has a lot of room to talk. Power on Dem’s.
Didn't it come out a couple of yrs ago that he lost the nuke codes for a few months?
May the heros of Benghazi be proud of how we vote today.
They gave their lives for us, now we need to give our votes for them.
Vote as if the lives of our Military Men and Women depended on it.
In other news, murders of crows are falling dead from the sky in Philadelphia, their black bodies glowing cherry red.
No Shame = No Pride = No Character
“Wouldnt you think hed choke on a statement like that?”
He’s been telling them so long he believes them.
This guy is a joke to real Americans,some idiots actually pay to hear him speak.
If a movie of his life is made, it will be a porn movie, with Hillary dressed in black leather and getting off like a Voyeur.
youve thus defined sociopathy
Youre laughing, but who wants a president who will knowingly, repeatedly tell you something he knows is not true?...
Good one Bubba!...You Arkansas hick!
I intend to outlive that lying, impeached, POS so I can fulfill the pledge I made years ago to piss on his grave. Damn the criminal National Socialist Democrat Party; all of them.
FUBO & FAD
Well, but, it depends what the meaning of “is” is.
“Will we never be rid of this POS?”
Only when he assumes soil temperature and even then we will hear about him every day. I am so disgusted with the current resident that I sometimes momentarily forget just how detestable Slick Willy really is but he can always be relied on to remind us. I cannot believe the number of otherwise seemingly normal people who still insist that Willy was among our greatest ever presidents. It is like saying that one of the all time greatest meals you ever ate was a ten day old plate of fried liver.
The Pinocchio President lectures us about lying. He hasn’t changed one bit from his finger-wagging “I did not have sex with that woman” self!
They don’t call him Slick Willy for nothing. He’s subtly reminding us that our current POTUS has lied repeatedly about Obamacare (as just one illustration):
1. Promise: bend the cost curve down. Actuality: the opposite.
2. Promise: won’t add a dime to the deficit. Actuality: will add hundreds of billions to the deficit and will increase unfunded liabilities due to Medicaid and Exchange subsidies by $17 TRILLION.
3. Promise: no tax increase for middle-class families. Actuality: hundreds of billions in higher taxes carefully hidden so that Uncle Sam’s fingerprints are invisible.
4. Promise: you can keep the coverage you have. Actuality: tens of millions will lose their current coverage as employers drop or swap their coverage.
Yada, yada, yada. I think WJC would be only too happy to see Obama buried in a landslide today, resulting in the repeal of his signature domestic policy initiative. That way Clinton won’t have his own legacy tarnished (i.e. by having Obama achieve a long-sought policy objective of progressives whereas Clinton failed miserably in same said aspiration). And it leaves Hillary free to pursue that objective in 2016 etc. (for which he will claim equal credit).
He created the new low ethical standard in U.S. politics!!!
And Joe Bite-me says there is not a single day he has been proud to be VP, LOL!!!
That is funnier than the unfunniest liberal comedian hasbeen.
If you want on/off the PA Ping List, please freepmail me.
If you see posts of interest to Pennsylvanians, please ping me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.