Skip to comments.
Sept. 11 Panel: Bush, Clinton Not to Blame - No Evidence to Blame Clinton or Bush Administrations
ABCNEWS.COM ^
Posted on 12/18/2003 4:39:17 PM PST by Sub-Driver
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-156 next last
To: Wait4Truth
Wesley Clark said today that President Bush failed in his oath of office. Gary Hart just spoke the word "impeachment". I guess they are really going to try this, aren't they?The effort will be made.
Sickening.
I do not think it will go anywhere since even Olberman and Hart conceded the Clinton administration might have the finger of blame pointed to it. They hastened to add that then it would be a matter of "it's everybody's fault". So, if it's Bush, it's his alone, Clinton never should be held responsible for anything.
41
posted on
12/18/2003 5:13:19 PM PST
by
cyncooper
("The evil is in plain sight")
To: mitchbert
It was awful!! He was taunting her and making fun of her and puttng her down saying she couldn't come up with an answer. He was laughing AT her with Lawrence O'Donnell....and she is supposed to be is FRIEND!
I DETEST Chrissy Matthews...he is a BULLY with NO CLASS!
To: ironman
Gary Hart just said he gave info to Bush right after he took office and for nine months Bush did nothing. We know that's not true since we have found out that there was a report to be presented to Bush right around 9-11 to go after bin Laden and destroy his network but the lie will continue. Clark blamed everything today on the President, saying he did not keep his oath of office. Hart mentioned the word impeachment. The bottom line is they are going to try to impeach the President.
To: Sub-Driver
"We have no evidence that anybody high in the Clinton administration or the Bush administration did anything wrong," chairman Thomas Kean said I was under the impression the panel did not take testimony from anyone or examine events involved prior to the GW Bush Administration.
Does anybody know if this is correct?
44
posted on
12/18/2003 5:16:23 PM PST
by
Gritty
("Liberals believe in world government more than they believe in the United States"-Ann Coulter)
To: mitchbert
Details please! Did Matthews let her get a word in?
Peggy is an intellectual giant next to him. I can't believe she could have had a chance to adequately respond and not crush him like a bug. More info please. Thanks.
He shouted over her quite a bit and came back after the commercial and demanded that she answer him "yes or no". What was at issue was a poll about Saddam and his involvement in 9/11. Peggy correctly had a more complex answer that was perfectly comprehensible, but Matthews wanted her to say that Saddam had no involvement in 9/11 and therefore we had no right to go into Iraq. He demanded she name what act of war Saddam had ever perpetrated against the U.S. It went on and on and I'm leaving out lots of detail, but as was said, it was quite heated. Laurence O'Donnell was the other guest and he stated flatly there is ZERO evidence that Saddam was involved in 9/11, so they wanted Peggy to agree with that.
45
posted on
12/18/2003 5:17:41 PM PST
by
cyncooper
("The evil is in plain sight")
To: cyncooper
Kean is a "friend of Bill". He was even quoted as calling him that when he began work at Drew University. I never really thought this commission was going to go anywhere until today. With Clark saying today that President Bush broke his oath of office and is totally to blame and Hart saying Bush did nothing to stop 9-11 and then mentioning impeachment, it is all now crystal clear. They are going to try to remove him from office.
To: Ann Archy
Matthews pounded Peggy because she wasn't giving him the answer he wanted. It was pretty vicious and he finally cut her off.
To: Toskrin
Everyone on both sides needs to stop blameshifting. There's only one person to blame - OSAMA BIN LADEN.
Here's the deal: We were attacked and the Bush administration formed a Bush Doctrine and commenced a War on Terror.
The dems decided to form a political attack in the form of blaming Bush for the attack. So I reject your call on both sides to stop blameshifting. Since the subject has been presented, the discussion is on. And baseless attacks WILL be answered.
Also, it is imperative to reorganize our intelligence and security measures, which obviously entails analyzing what changes need to be made and what errors were made in the past. This is not necessarily blameshifting unless one finds that by malicious intent or incompetence these errors were made. If false charges are to be leveled at Bush you can bet that the facts of mistakes Clinton made will be then brought to light.
48
posted on
12/18/2003 5:23:47 PM PST
by
cyncooper
("The evil is in plain sight")
To: MattAMiller
Goes to show how effective media bias can bethank GOD for the internet!!!
49
posted on
12/18/2003 5:23:56 PM PST
by
GeronL
(Saddam is out of the hole and into the quagmire!)
To: Sub-Driver
"We have no evidence that anybody high in the Clinton administration or the Bush administration did anything wrong," chairman Thomas Kean said in an interview with ABC's "Nightline" taped for airing Thursday night.Turning down Osama bin Laden was the correct thing to do? But of course since Janet Reno said there was not a legal basis for nailing his sorry ass.
50
posted on
12/18/2003 5:24:53 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: finnman69
it looks more like CBS sifted comments for anti-Bush material out of context and ran with it.Thats what we call Media Bias.
51
posted on
12/18/2003 5:25:24 PM PST
by
GeronL
(Saddam is out of the hole and into the quagmire!)
To: Wait4Truth
He was vicious and he humiliated her by laughing AT her and making fun of her, just like bullies do.
To: Wait4Truth
They are going to try to remove him from office. I don't think so. Not only do they not have the votes in Congress, (nor will they under any circumstance), but there has been nothing remotely resembling an impeachable act.
This is nothing but Democrats trying ANYTHING to get some publicity in the face of a remarkably successful President. If the Democrats introduce anything resembling a formal impeachment proceeding, they're going to dig their grave even deeper.
53
posted on
12/18/2003 5:27:41 PM PST
by
Dog Gone
To: squidly
B.S. It has been documented that Bill Clinton was getting fellated while discussing troop deployments. He couldn't give a hoot about the military or the security of the nation. For Gods sakes, the man sold access to Chinese Commies...and he did squat about Al Qaeda for 8 years, through at least 4 attacks...maybe more!
No, there is plenty of blame, and much of it rests with TheBentOne, Impeached42.
He is one reason I am now, happily, a
Recovering_Democrat.
54
posted on
12/18/2003 5:28:21 PM PST
by
Recovering_Democrat
(I'm so glad to no longer be associated with the Party of Dependence on Government!)
To: Sub-Driver
WHne he says something serious about our borders then I might listen. Until then he is just another run down Monday morning quaterback never been.
55
posted on
12/18/2003 5:30:18 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: Wait4Truth
ce and is totally to blame and Hart saying Bush did nothing to stop 9-11 and then mentioning impeachment, it is all now crystal clear. They are going to try to remove him from office
Let them! It will mean a Civil War!!!! Buy Your guns now!!
56
posted on
12/18/2003 5:34:51 PM PST
by
GeronL
(Saddam is out of the hole and into the quagmire!)
To: Dog Gone
As usual you are correct...and I might add...that the rats really do not want to open this can of worms....their idol(the rapist) was neck deep in avoiding OBL, he had other things to do.
57
posted on
12/18/2003 5:36:25 PM PST
by
mystery-ak
(Mike...Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas...)
To: mitchbert
58
posted on
12/18/2003 5:37:35 PM PST
by
StriperSniper
(Sending the Ba'thist to the showers! ;-)
To: Sub-Driver
59
posted on
12/18/2003 5:38:52 PM PST
by
Mia T
(Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
To: mystery-ak
their idol(the rapist) was neck deep in avoiding OBLExactly. Impeachment backfired on the Republicans to a small extent (except that in a weird twist of fate, there's little doubt that we'd have President Gore today if we'd have won that battle), and there's just no chance that the Democrats would actually open the impeachment can again this time.
They can get more mileage out of threatening to do it, than to actually commit to it. It's total BS. Even Terry McStupid won't back that plan.
60
posted on
12/18/2003 5:44:22 PM PST
by
Dog Gone
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-156 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson