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,

[technomage]

The correct answer is "Bush didn't lie".

Big dittos!

[pushforbush]

Nobody died when Clinton lied . . .,

Well

Terrorists plotted while Monica squatted!

and

Evil roared while Clinton scored!

[cwb]

Here's a letter I wrote to Alan Colmes when he was making the same claims. Take what you need:

According to you, lying about war is worse than lying about sex. And while I would generally agree with that, let me give you my perspective: Clinton's lie was much worse. Clinton didn't just lie about sex, he lied about war to cover for sex. He bombed 4 sovereign nations in the span of 8-months to cover for his "personal" ordeals. War is war...and it's hell, and whether you're killing people from 15,000 feet or 500 feet...people still die. And the last time I checked, bombing a sovereign nation is still an ACT OF WAR.

Clinton just happened to bomb Afghanistan and the Sudan the day before Monica was to begin her Grand Jury testimony. So outrageous was this operation, that Clinton didn't even consult his Joint Cheifs of Staff as to the operation. So worried was Janet Reno, that she actually questioned the legallity of the act. It is now a known fact that this bombing further outraged Bin Laden, as Clinton was supposedly trying to kill him. Unfortunatley, as a General in charge pointed out, the intelligence was not only "shaky" as to his whereabouts, the operation was incomplete as we didn't follow-up on further intelligence reports that did indicate were Bin Laden might be. Maybe that's because Clinton's one-week war on terror was only a destraction from his "affairs" back at home. As a result, one could argue that Clinton's little gambit only increased Bin Laden's hatred for this country...ala 9/11.

And speaking of failed intellligence reports, it was a report that Clinton relied on that claimed the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant (in Sudan) was a VX Nerve producing facility. It wasn't...and we got socked with a multi-million dollar lawsuit, as well as destorying a medical facility that was responsible for over 50% of this country's medicines. The deaths in this bombing weren't just limited to those killed in the plant. As reports now indicate, Al-Shifa produced drugs to fight Turberculosis and Malaria...and THOUSANDS have died since they didn't have access to these medicines (one report said 10,000). Contrary to claims...this was more than just an "aspirin factory." I didn't see you libs out lamenting the thousands of deaths that occurred because proper medicines were unavailable to the populous of this country. Then again, why should you have been? The objective US media NEVER reported this story.

You want more lies? How about the 100,000 mass-graves in Kosovo that have never been discovered? Or how about Cinton's claim that we should "never forget Racak" as he used the Racak Massacre as a pretext for war in Serbia? The Racak Massacre has already been proven to be a fraud by KLA soldiers who lied about the "execution style" murders of innocent women and children. A Finnish foresnic team in conjunction with the UN has stated that Racak was a straight-up fire fight after 4 Serb cops were killed a couple days before. The bullet wounds were inconsistent with "execution style" injuries. Yet our great objective "elite" media has ignored these findings, as they gave Clinton a pass on these "failed" intelligence reports.

A simple review of Clinton's claims (and the democrats) in 1998 explicitly imply the exact same threat that Bush spoke of for the reasons for this war in Iraq. And regardless if Clinton waged a "full scale war," the Democrats still didn't question the validity of those statements or the intelligence that led to those conclusions. No. In fact, many of them made the same claims themselves. Yet, today, it is you Democrats who all of a sudden want investigations...and even impeachment. Bring it on. And let's throw in the 4 bombings of Iraq, that were also acts of war based on similar intelligence reports. Maybe while were at it, we can also find out what intelligence failures led to the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. I don't recall the great outrage to find out what "intelligence failure" led to this disaster.

Which brings up another statement you made: You said if Clinton had done what Bush had done in Iraq, the Republicans would've been all over him. Here's a little fact for ya' Alan...Clinton did do what Bush did...and a lot more (see above). Yet, I don't recall the Republicans or the media reacting anywhere near the way you guys have over this war. You have not only impugned the character of this President, you have emboldened the enemy in Iraq as you attack Bush over 16 words in a 5000+ word speech. You are giving both aid and comfort to our enemies and allies alike who can now question the validity of our president's motives...even though it is your evidence and motives that are really in question. Your (and your friends) desires to cripple this president have not only damaged this country, they are damaging the lives of those fighting to protect us...and our lives, alike. Both your statements are inconsistent with the record.

On a final note about lies: There is a big difference between flat-out lying to the American people and what, at the most, is subjective reading of intelligence information that "may" have been inconclusive. The fact is, this is nothing new...as Clinton (see above) and just about every administration has did it. This doesn't even come close to what LBJ did in Vietnam with the Gulf of Tonkin. This doesn't excuse what BUSH did if he lied...but he did not lie. There is also a difference between lying and selectively choosing information to support your policy...based on a plethora of intelligence information that is pro and con. This information was supported overwhelmingly by more than just Bush...including many of the same Democrats who are attacking Bush.

Just because politicians of opposing Parties have a different perspective on information doesn't make one Party wrong...or liars. This is what politics are about. And there is a difference in lying about a personal matter and disagreeing over policy matters. Whether you like it or not, Bush's so-called lie, was based on information he had that he believed threatened the USA. His "so-called" lie was not about personal gratification or a means to satisfy himself. On the contrary, he believes he was doing something to protect the citizens of this country. What Clinton did was just the opposite. His "admitted" lie, was nothing more than a lie to protect himself. It was pure selfishness and had nothing to do with the good of the country. In fact, it was so outrageous, that it did irreparable harm to the country as he did all he could to protect himself...including smearing others in the process. "Clinton's lie was nothing more than a selfish act to protect his interest...Bush's so-called lie (which it wasn't) was about protecting this country's interests." You're right...there is a difference.

A Final observation: You people who claim that Bush's lie led to more deaths than CLinton's are wrong (again). Between the reported 4,000 civilian deaths in Kosovo (not including combatants), the deaths in Bosnia, the estimated hundreds to the thousands of deaths in the Somalian fire-fight, the collateral damage resulting from Al-Shifa, the deaths resulting from the 4 separate bombings of Iraq...and even the operation in Haiti, Clinton's death count is just as high. And as you said, these weren't even full-scale wars. Unfortunatley, unlike Bush, the media didn't care about the death and destruction that Clinton caused...or the lies that led to these conflicts. But why let facts get in the way of your (and your media friends) selective reading of history?

[NEWwoman]

Kathleen Willey's cat.

(excuse the misspells)

[Question_Assumptions]

Take a look at Kosovo and Serbia. Not only did a lot of Serbians die (including accidentally bombed civilians) but they haven't found evidence of the massive levels of "genocide" that Clinton used to justify the war there. Compare the number of people found in mass graves in Kosovo with the numbers claimed before the war.

[Paulus Invictus]

And how about the publishers of Hitlery's fictional history? It contains lies of all kinds, including the lies of omission. And the publishers of the Moore and Franken trash? How, pray ask your doubter, are these publishers of such tripe any better better than Regnery?

Committed liberals cannot be swayed by logic, by the facts or by reason. They have a gene that prevents the use of or understanding of such tools for thought.

[Question_Assumptions]

Also ask your friend whether Iraq is a better place without Saddam. Even if there was no other justification for the war, the elimination of Saddam's regime was honestly justification enough.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

How about Bosnia?

[Peach]

Excellent job in your #44!

[mtbopfuyn]

Get the Arkancide list.

[Vigilanteman]

This guy has his head so far up his anal orifice, he probably wouldn't be convinced if the evidence fell down on top of him. One of Clinton's first lies which killed a lot of people was Waco. Two of the agents killed at Waco as reason to escalate that disaster had prior associations with Clinton and were shot in the back, not from the Branch Davidians.

Oklahoma City was also a direct result of Waco. More than a little evidence suggests the explosions which did the real damage were planted on the inside, not the on the rented Ryder truck.

Clinton has an incredibly long body count of past associates. I'm not so tinfoil hatlike as to beleive they were all did in on the orders of Hill and Bill, but neither am I so naive as to beleive they were all coincidences. Just for starters, you might want to ask some Freeper to link the story of the boys on the track "worst case of suicide I ever done see" . . or do a Google search on Clinton's personal coroner Fahmy Malik who covered up so much for the family.

[Vigilanteman]

Arkancide

[Qwinn]

Agreed - excellent post. I am now curious to see what the original poster's @ss of a friend would respond to that very effective rip.

Qwinn

[driftless]

Liberals have been getting Americans killed for over forty years. Not only by their penchant for lax national security but for other reasons: weakness on crime that skyrocketed when the death penalty and lenient sentencing for murderers were initiated in the sixties. Partial birth abortion is another crime that can be laid at liberals feet. And promotion of the drug culture that has resulted in millions of Americans throwing away their lives for temporary but deadly thrills. Liberals have a lot to answer for.

[SmokyGeo]

Bush didn't lie. He said he would attack any nation that harbors terrorists and he did. He said he would depose any dictator who tortures and kills thousands of his own people and he did. He accused Saddam of refusing to obey the U.N. resolution to account for his weapons and gave him warning that he should obey now or else. He meant it. He is now telling us that he will take appropriate action against any nation that dares to even consider challenging the United States and he is doing exactly what he says he will do.

Your liberal buddy might not agree that Bush is doing the right things, but he certainly can't say that Bush is lying about anything he is doing. He is doing exactly what he says he will do.

That said, I don't blame Clinton for the World Trade Center or the Pentagon or the Pennsylvania plane because at the time no one imagined that terrorists would either be so bold or so successful. Nothing even remotely on such a scale had ever happened in history before, where so many innocent civilians were targeted for death. The entire world reacted with shock and horror.

Hindsight is 20/20 and now that the world knows what these terrorists are capable of we must act differently than we acted before. Yesterday's answers don't always answer today's problems.

[Osage Orange]

Great Post..!!

[Ingtar]

Clinton lied and bombed an asprin factory in Sudan killing the night watchman. Clinton lied and bombed empty camps in Afghanistan, innocents died when cruise missiles went astray. Clinton lied about being tough on terror, 3000 died on 9/11; I forget how many died in the Cole, 1st WTC, and African Embassy bombings. Clinton lied about genocide and countless died in bombings and attacks that would not have taken place without our air cover...

[mc5cents]

If they keep bringing up the liberal jive, ask them to stop until they read the books and agree to discuss them.

Exactly! That was my first thought also. Read the books. It's all in there.

[longtermmemmory]

when others told the truth, clinton made sure they died.


Clinton lied about doing something to deal with terrism and two embasies were bombed.