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,

[MJY1288]

Just kick him in the nads and move on

[coloradan]

I will second: fantastic post.

[coloradan]

Or ... fourth or fifth as the case may be.

[mc5cents]

Worrying about civilian casualties didn't get trendy till W took office.

Yea, much in the same way that the "homeless" disappear during democrat administrations and reappear during republican ones.

[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.

Here are some research pointers for you. Note that some of these are leftist sources:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SZA302A.html
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kosovo-talks.html
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/parentijune2000.htm
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/spectator062203.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/526898.stm
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/2/7/30418
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/Natbm200-04.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/nato-f14.shtml
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/slies.htm (there is a great Wesley Clark line in this one)

Note that people overlook the lies that led to the ousting of Milosovich for the same reason they overlook any lies that led to the ousting of Saddam. Both were bad men and their countries are better off without them.

[cwb]

Thanks, guys,

As you can imagine, I got no response from Mr. Colmes.

[Wondervixen]

>>"Nobody Died When Clinton Lied"

No, it just pissed us the hell off, is all. Now these clods want to spin away that Bush lied and piss us off some more. The only thing different now, though, is we're not going to play their little spin games anymore! They're liable to get the teeth knocked right out of their mouths for it this time!

[Right_in_Virginia]

First WTC bombing - he did nothing.

Cole - he did nothing.

Embassies - he did nothing.

Other countries offered OBL on a platter - he did nothing.

OBL laughed on videotape after Black Hawk Down and understood he could take on Americans and Clinton would not do anything.

And ask your friend - is that the standard now for a good president? No one has to die?

Terrific answer! Worth repeating---often.

And, remembering---always.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Bump for post 44.

Another terrific, well-reasoned answer.

[HitmanLV]

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."

Actually, you didn't evade it at all. You cited three sources, which HE or SHE would rather evade than accept. They are stating that those three books are a pack of lies, without discussing any of them on the merits.

They are being dishonest here - they challenge you, and then they dismiss the proof. What in the world would they accept? Frankly, I would point them to the Miniter book, and show him the meticulous notes, and say if this is a pack of lies, all of the cites are lies, some from newspapers and journals he might otherwise respect.

Ask why they dismiss the materials, and if they have read them. The fact that the publisher has a point of view doesn't mean that the book is dishonest. In fact, in issuing a blanket dismissal of the books, it is they who are being dishonest.

As for a single lie, you have your choice. Off the top of my head, the lies of the Kosovo death camp and mass graves that was used to justify the war was never credited, and that was a Clinton-led bombing campaign targetting military and civillian targets for 80 days of so. If that didn't kill anyone, you friend is deeper in denial that they may like!

My advice - find new friends. I cut off many Clinton apologists during the Clinton years, and my life is cleaner, uncluttered, and the better for it.

[Freemeorkillme]

Oh man, does this person you know have it coming.

Apologies if a FReeper has already posted it, but read "The Downside Legacy Archives" thoroughly here

http://www.alamo-girl.com/

written by our very own Alamo-girl. There's the ammo, now start memorizing...heh heh..

[Prime Choice]

A picture says a thousand words. This one should do nicely.

Be sure to point out that Clinton had TWO YEARS of having bin Laden offered to him on a silver platter and he turned Sudan down every time.

And we all know what Osama went on to do...

[VRWC_minion]

Don'tlay this game. You have just fell into a debate trap. He defines the terms "lie" and "causal death" and anything you try to prove him wrong he will simply reject that you have found a case that fits the terms.

His unstaed premise is that Clinton is a better president because even though he lied no one died, implying that Bush lied and someone died from it.

To get control of the debate back again you need to concede that ALL president are guilty of "stretching the truth" and switch the argument back to the main issue, namely has Bush done a good job facing the terrorist threat and is he doing everything possible to make us safer.

[cwb]

I remember long before I ever joined here seeing these reports when ever I used the search-engine looking for Clinton corruption. This is some excellently compiled research material and always wonder who Alamo was. Was she doing this before becoming a FReeper...and did she get her resources from this site? Either way, these are some great readings.

[45Auto]

The end result of the Clinton presidency in which millions die may be still to come. I note the recent successful entry into the "space age" by the PRC and I think it is directly related to Clinton's money-for-favors policy. Against the advice of his own State Department, Little Bill The Rat signed high tech waivers so his big money donors at Hughs, Loral, and Motorola could go over to the Red Commie Chinese and help them build up their missle technology. Without Clinton, they would not have been able to put a man in orbit, nor would they have the ability to now launch nuclear missles at the US.

The Lewinsky Affair saved Bill's @ss in my opinion. That story broke right around the time that Congress was investigating the Al Gore-Buddhist Temple-Red Chinese agent-money connection that just might have gotten Bill impeached and then indicted for treason. No, Bill owes Matt Drudge big-time for letting out the tale on Monica and thus pushing the real story off the front page. We may yet have to pay for this little bit of treason sometime in the future.

[Freemeorkillme]

Me too, me too. Quite an impressive bit of research.

"Archiver", how do you respond to the question which should rightfully be directed in your direction??

FreeRegards,

FMOKM

[WVNan]

Go to this thread..http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007270/posts and see post #15 for quote after quote (some by clinton and gore) about WMDs being a threat to America. Print out all those quotes and wave them under the lib's nose and tell him you found all sorts of liars in the dim party.

[proud American in Canada]

"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."

I'll remember that one.... LOL! :)

[Bob J]

As long as you allow him to control the questions and the debate, you're toast. You have to be asking him the questions and put him on the defensive. Liberals get all frothy at the mouth when they are playing defense.

[alnick]

His premise is that both Clinton and Bush lied, but Bush's "lies" caused deaths. Clinton lied. Bush told the truth. The libs are now lying about Bush.

Challenge him on what lies Bush supposedly told. Then prove him wrong with quotes of what Bush actually said, proving your guy to be the liar.