Liberal Challenge: "Nobody Died When Clinton Lied"

1-/24/03 | zeebee

[zeebee]

I've been challenged by a liberal who stated, "Nobody Died When Clinton Lied".

I replied, "except almost 3000 on September 11, 2001"

He said "put up or shut up"

I pointed to 3 books:

"Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years" by Rich Lowry

"Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror" by Rich Miniter

“Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security” by Robert Patterson

He said, "They all come from the wingnut propaganda house Regnery. If Regnery were to publish a dictionary I wouldn't believe a word in it."

"You've evaded my challenge. You haven't pointed to a specific Clinton lie or lies that led to the deaths of the 3,000 people on Sept. 11, or of anybody else."

"What did Clinton say, how was it a lie, and who died as a result? Be specific."

Can I get some Freeper help here?

thanks,

[Poohbah]

Look up all those flowery statements about how he would bring all those EE-vil terrorists to justice from 1993-2000 (first WTC attack, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, embassies bombed in Kenya and Tanzania).

He didn't. As far as I can tell, he didn't do diddly-squat.

He promised that he would bring the evildoers to justice. He didn't. Price tag: 3,000 dead on 9/11/01.

[null and void]

Ummm, Kosevo? Sudan?

[BlueNgold]

First and Foremost: Bush didn't lie. First ask him to prove the basis upon which his challenge is founded. What did Bush lie about? Since he has not lied about Iraq/Afghanistan there can be no deaths resulting from lies in this case.

[Roscoe Karns]

http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/ai/163.html

International report blames U.S. and others for genocide in Rwanda In March of 1998, President Clinton visited Rwanda and apologized for the West's failure to act to stop the 1994 genocide there. Clinton blamed that failure on ignorance: He and other western leaders, he said, "did not fully appreciate the depth and speed with which you had been engulfed by this unimaginable terror."

Last year, a report by a distinguished panel convened by the Organization for African Unity concluded that Clinton knew exactly what was happening in Rwanda. Information from U.S. intelligence agencies, the State Department and U.N. forces in Rwanda warned of the massacres before they began.

The United Nations is obligated to intervene in genocide under the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention. But Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stymied that intervention. "At every stage," the report says, "Albright could be found tossing up roadblocks to speedy decisions for effective action."

"President Clinton insists that his failure was a function of ignorance," the report states. "The facts show, however, that the American government knew precisely what was happening ... but domestic politics took priority over the lives of helpless Africans." In other words, Clinton lied -- and, as David Corn points out in an article in Covert Action Quarterly, "Lying about genocide is a bit more outrageous than lying about sex."

[Madame Dufarge]

Why not declare victory and end it there. If he objects, ask him to explain what Bush has "lied" about, and prove that it was a "lie". I'll bet he can't.

Dr. Frank is right.

Some people will remain forever willfully blind; only the squishy middle is salvageable.

[4mycountry]

Here's a hint for you: Liberals will never -- and I mean NEVER -- give a straight answer in an arguement or TAKE a straight answer in an arguement.

It's never, "Well, whats-his-name did this and this and this, and you can look at that and that and that as solid, recorded proof"; it's "Well, the-guy-youre-for did this and this and this! So there! And it doesn't matter if I don't have sources"!

And it's never, "Well, you told me what whats-his-name did and when he did it and what to look at to verify, so you get a point." It's "Well, you're not giving me enough! Well you're not answering me (exactly like I want you to)! Try again!"

Tell him about Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Watergate. All valid. But just keep in mind that the only weapon liberals have in an arguement is evasion, and nothing more.

[FormerLib]

2,500 Serbian civilians were killed when Clinton illegally intiated a bombing campaign against Yugoslavia.

[what's up]

Clinton lied about the "hundreds of thousands" in mass graves in Yugloslavia. As a result of our bombing, many died.

Bush never lied.

[RISU]

Trun your back, walk away. He isn't worth messin with.

[proust]

The libs have forgotten that people died when Clinton lied even before he took office. When he was President-elect, he said the Haitian boat people could get asylum in the US. He was full of crap and went back on his word. They came to America by the boatload and had to be turned back. The result was a lot of people dying at sea because they believed Clinton. The Clintons' reign of terror only got worse when he took office.

[Twinkie]

During the first campaign when he criticized President
Bush for not accepting the Haitian boat people who were
fleeing their country for America. When they heard him
blathering on about how HE would not turn them back
on radios they left for America as soon as he
was sworn in HE sent the Coast Guard out to turn them
back and hundreds of them died in fragile boats with no
place to go. On the strength of his word. This was the
tone of his whole Presidency. Lies and deaths.

[proust]

"Clinton lied about the "hundreds of thousands" in mass graves in Yugloslavia. As a result of our bombing, many died."

Yeah, he eventually created the mass deaths with Wesley Clark's brilliant idea of dropping tons of "dumb" bombs from an incredibly high fly over. Civilian casualties were massive and generally ignored by the lamestream media. Worrying about civilian casualties didn't get trendy till W took office.

[Maria S]

"I honestly can't imagine why you'd continue to have a conversation with someone so bereft of original thought and understanding of 'irony' that they'd actually utter the phrase "Nobody Died When Clinton Lied" without bursting into laughter."

Bingo! I would only add something like, "Yeah, and I'll bet you're one of those that believes O.J. Simpson was home watching TV at the exact time his wife and Goldman were killed, too."

I have a friend (not a close one) who believes 'Bowling for Columbine' is totally true and accurate...even though I've given him reams of printouts detailing the truth about the so-called documentary that is nothing but lies.

To quote: "You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em."

[TalBlack]

Why do you accept the premise implicit in the moron Librals question, ie: that Bush HAS lied and, further, that there is some sort of equivalence betweenn he and Clinton?

For the record Clinton thought nothing of launching a missle attack and killing the night shift at an asprin factory because he needed to bump another very politically damaging story out of the headlines. That's outright Evil!!

[SF Republican]

Ask him what does bill say to hillary after sex? honey, i'll be home in 20 minutes. I die every time I hear that one.

[TankerKC]

You let the debate turn to which "lie" is worse. Did you just concede that Bush lied? He got you with a Red Herring.

[Qwinn]

"He said, "They all come from the wingnut propaganda house Regnery. If Regnery were to publish a dictionary I wouldn't believe a word in it.""

This is the most obnoxious response I can imagine. The liberals completely take over every mainstream news outlet, publishing house, etc. at every level with the numbers of self-proclaimed democrats outnumbering self-proclaimed republicans 12-1... and then when conservatives find an outlet where they can get a word in edgewise (AM radio, Fox News, a -single- publishing house) then they aren't reputable enough. It's a total shutdown of conservative argument -without- argument. It's infuriating.

Does this guy ever give you stuff from The Guardian or The Nation to back up his claims? If so, demand that he recognize books by Regnery, because by NO stretch of the imagination can Regnery be considered more biased than the Guardian or the Nation. If he won't, then dismiss him as the hypocrite he is.

If we don't stand by Regnery as fully legitimate, then we lose every battle, because that is the ONLY publishing house that will publish conservative thought. The rest of the publishers won't even recognize a conservative thought, much less publish them. Read Ann Coulter's Slander - she even points out where several major publishing houses admit to that. She also lists how much liberal writers get paid in advances versus conservative writers, despite conservatives pulling in as good or better sales. If the statistics went the other way, you can bet he'd consider it significant!

If he feels he can discredit a single author, fine, let him attempt to do so. But Rich Lowry has never been discredited to my knowledge. Both of the others you mentioned have a solid reputation. A whole freaking publishing house? The only one in which conservatives aren't blacklisted? SCREW HIM.

Qwinn

[John W]

Clinton urges nations to join in fighting terrorism
June 26, 1996
Web posted at: 1:50 p.m. EDT (1750 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton summed up Tuesday's deadly bomb blast in Saudi Arabia as a "cowardly act of terrorism" and vowed that the United States "will not rest" in its fight against international terrorism.

"Anyone who attacks one American attacks all Americans," the president said in a speech before departing for an economic summit in Lyons, France.

Clinton said he would make the fight against terrorism the main topic at the G-7 summit of industrialized nations: "My first order of business will be to focus the strength and the energy of the G-7 on the continuing fight against terrorism," he said.

[proud American in Canada]

"Look, he's not going to believe you no matter what sources (confirmed or otherwise) you present to him."

Unfortunately this is quite true. This guy is in the die-hard left, obviously hates everything Republican, and there's no convincing him.

There are some in the "middle" who can be convinced. But this guy's not one of them. :)

don't waste too much energy on him, zee bee! :)