The evil of Liberalism

[McCulloch]

Liberals are not good people.

When did Liberalism become an evil thing? Is Liberalism evil? Shouldn't we all be a bit more liberal?

[kayky]

Yet you 'know' Anita Hill was telling the truth.

I never used the word know. Once again you put words in my mouth. I simply found her to be a credible witness, and I believe her.

IF they stories of Clinton are true would you agree he should be disqualified from being president, as I assume you feel Thomas should be disqualified from serving on the court?

You shouldn't make assumptions. Clinton was impeached but not put out of office. Certainly, if he had been a rapist, he should have been put out of office; but these sound like wild allegations to me that weren't even raised at his impeachment hearings. I'm glad he wasn't put out of office because he took Reagan's deficit and turned it into a surplus. And I think he has proven himself to be a better man since leaving office through all of his good works. He certainly isn't sitting around in Texas, painting pictures.

I do not think that Thomas should be removed from the court. When I think of the sexual indiscretions of many of our past leaders, I think we would have lost out on a lot of talent had we gone for the jugular at the time. I do not condone immoral behavior, but I don't think it should automatically disqualify someone from office.

[kayky]

And He often corrected them by saying, "Have you not read the Scriptures?" He would say the same to the Bible-denying liberal revisionists today.

Jesus was a Jew teaching Jews. He undoubtedly, as a Jew, believed in following Jewish law. However, he did wish to reform the way this law was interpreted. I don't think he had any intentions of starting a new religion, and the Gentiles were barely on his radar.

But the New Testament did not exist when Jesus spoke these words, so he certainly was not referring to it. I do not "deny" the Bible, nor do I wish to revise it. I simply want to read and study it correctly--something fundamentalists are incapable of doing.

Kayky:
Seriously? The site is called "News Busters: Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias." No conspiratorial thought patterns or political agendas going on there!

Your dodge is noted. The story was reported by the Washington Examiner, and the facts came from the DC Mayor's office.

It can hardly be called a "dodge" when I have made my opinion about statistics quite clear to you on many occasions.

Your pattern seems to be to just ignore facts contrary to your preconceived world view.

That's actually funny, coming from you!

And according to the DC Mayor's office, 80% never even looked for work even though they were supposed to. What else do they have to do all day? The Bible says able-bodied people who don't work shouldn't eat.

Most welfare recipients are single mothers. I think they have plenty to do all day! Do you know what generational despair is?

Kayky: and they will always be criticized by those who enrich themselves with corporate welfare. Guess which group I have the least sympathy for.

The one that doesn't vote Democrat as much? FYI, Wall St. was a huge giver to Obama. Obama raised more than $40 million for his presidential campaign from business groups and financial firms in the 2008 presidential campaign, more than double what his Republican opponent John McCain got. I guess their payoff was being exempted from Obamacare.

Well, we're certainly being led down the garden path here. The group I have the least sympathy is the one that gets rich by exploiting the poor and cheating the system.

Kayky:
I am not interested in reading hateful language, whether it be from the right or the left.

They why did you bring it up?

I brought it up because you implied that really hateful things weren't being said and that Obama was just being "thin-skinned." In other words, you brought it up--not me.

[East of Eden]

Yet you 'know' Anita Hill was telling the truth.

I never used the word know. Once again you put words in my mouth. I simply found her to be a credible witness, and I believe her.

IF they stories of Clinton are true would you agree he should be disqualified from being president, as I assume you feel Thomas should be disqualified from serving on the court?

You shouldn't make assumptions. Clinton was impeached but not put out of office. Certainly, if he had been a rapist, he should have been put out of office; but these sound like wild allegations to me that weren't even raised at his impeachment hearings.

Unlike Anita Hill's wild allegations?

I'm glad he wasn't put out of office because he took Reagan's deficit and turned it into a surplus.

Thanks to Newt and the GOP Congress. Check the record, the economy didn't really take off until the GOP came in. BTW, Obama can only envy Reagan's economic record. Reagan inherited an equally terrible economy and fixed it, he didn't whine about his predecessor.

And I think he has proven himself to be a better man since leaving office through all of his good works. He certainly isn't sitting around in Texas, painting pictures.

I don't see what good Clinton is doing, as always, he has to be in the spotlight. All he is doing is collecting big speaking fees and pushing partisan political causes.

I do not think that Thomas should be removed from the court. When I think of the sexual indiscretions of many of our past leaders, I think we would have lost out on a lot of talent had we gone for the jugular at the time. I do not condone immoral behavior, but I don't think it should automatically disqualify someone from office.

Fair enough. As far as Clinton's serial cheating, as Ross Perot said, if his wife can't trust him how can we? Their's was not a marriage, it is a business partnership. Reagan wouldn't even take his jacket off in the Oval Office out of respect, Clinton turned it into a whorehouse.

[kayky]

Unlike Anita Hill's wild allegations?

I didn't find her allegations wild at all. These kinds of things happen to women on the job a lot. I guess you wouldn't know. As I said, I found her to be a credible witness.

Thanks to Newt and the GOP Congress. Check the record, the economy didn't really take off until the GOP came in. BTW, Obama can only envy Reagan's economic record. Reagan inherited an equally terrible economy and fixed it, he didn't whine about his predecessor.

See, this is where you lose your credibility with me, East of Eden. If bad things happen when a democrat is president, it's the president's fault. If good things happen, the republicans in Congress get the credit. You can't have it both ways. And the only president to inherit an economy worse than the one handed off to Obama was Franklin Roosevelt from Herbert Hoover. And if it hadn't been for the safety nets that Roosevelt put in place, Bush would have sunk us in a deeper depression than Hoover did.

I don't see what good Clinton is doing, as always, he has to be in the spotlight. All he is doing is collecting big speaking fees and pushing partisan political causes.

Perhaps if you turned off Fox News once in a while, you'd find out what is actually happening in the world.


OUR MISSION

The Clinton Foundation works to improve global health, strengthen economies, promote health and wellness, and protect the environment by fostering partnerships among businesses, governments, nongovernmental organizations, and private citizens.

Fair enough. As far as Clinton's serial cheating, as Ross Perot said, if his wife can't trust him how can we?

This is a silly leap in logic.

Their's was not a marriage, it is a business partnership.

Not that it's any of your business, but how could you possibly know this?

Reagan wouldn't even take his jacket off in the Oval Office out of respect, Clinton turned it into a whorehouse.

Now see. You start off making a valid point, and then you shoot yourself in the foot with a gross exaggeration.

[East of Eden]

I didn't find her allegations wild at all. These kinds of things happen to women on the job a lot. I guess you wouldn't know. As I said, I found her to be a credible witness.

But not Juanita Broadrick and Mrs. Willey?

See, this is where you lose your credibility with me, East of Eden. If bad things happen when a democrat is president, it's the president's fault. If good things happen, the republicans in Congress get the credit. You can't have it both ways.

From an article by Larry Elder:

"In 1995, Time magazine named Newt Gingrich "Man of the Year": "Leaders make things possible. Exceptional leaders make them inevitable. Newt Gingrich belongs in the category of the exceptional. All year -- ruthlessly, brilliantly, obnoxiously -- he worked at hammering together inevitabilities: a balanced federal budget, for one. ... Today, (SET ITAL) because of Gingrich (END ITAL) (emphasis added), the question is not whether a balanced-budget plan will come to pass but when.

"Gingrich has changed the center of gravity. From Franklin Roosevelt onward, Americans came to accept the federal government as the solution to problems, a vast parental presence. ... Newt Gingrich wants to reverse the physics, make American government truly centrifugal, with power flowing out of Washington, devolving to the states."

And what of Clinton's role?

Time continues: "Having organized an insurrectionist crew in the House, Gingrich seized the initiative from a temporarily (SET ITAL) passive president (END ITAL) (emphasis added) and steered the country onto a heading that the speaker accurately proclaimed to be revolutionary."

In 1996, Newsweek's Evan Thomas wrote: "More than anything else, Gingrich wanted to dismantle the 'beauractic welfare state.' To do that, he understood, he had to attack Congress' addiction to deficit spending. When he assumed power in 1995, he consulted CEOs who had downsized their own companies; they advised him to stake out bold positions and force others to follow. ... Under Gingrich the House passed a budget that truly restrained the growth of federal spending."

In 1998, Time's Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy wrote: "If Clinton has always had a gift for turning weakness into opportunity, Gingrich has a gift for turning opportunity into rubble. Newt was the one who made unbalanced budgets a thing of the past, but it was (SET ITAL) Clinton who somehow got credit for it (END ITAL) (emphasis added), rode to re-election (and) hauled his own party toward a more sensible center. ... (SET ITAL) Voters might have retired Clinton in 1996 for moving too far to the left (END ITAL) (emphasis added) had Gingrich not come along and yanked the whole enterprise too far to the right."

And the only president to inherit an economy worse than the one handed off to Obama was Franklin Roosevelt from Herbert Hoover.

You forgot Reagan. Now you're blaming Hoover for a world-wide depression?

And if it hadn't been for the safety nets that Roosevelt put in place,

I'm all for safety nets, just not hammocks.

Bush would have sunk us in a deeper depression than Hoover did.

Obama can only envy Bush's economic record, apart from the end which came from the housing crash. This was the result of liberals basically making it illegal for banks to properly evaluate home loans, all in the name of 'fairness'.

Perhaps if you turned off Fox News once in a while, you'd find out what is actually happening in the world.


OUR MISSION

The Clinton Foundation works to improve global health, strengthen economies, promote health and wellness, and protect the environment by fostering partnerships among businesses, governments, nongovernmental organizations, and private citizens.

OK, I guess that makes up for the rapes to you.

[kayky]

But not Juanita Broadrick and Mrs. Willey?

Juanita Broaddrock filed an affidavit, swearing under oath that Clinton had not raped her. I don't know anything about this Mrs Willey you speak of, but it seems odd to me that no allegations of rape were brought forward during hearings in which the republicans were determined to bring Clinton down.

From an article by Larry Elder:

"In 1995, Time magazine named Newt Gingrich "Man of the Year": "Leaders make things possible. Exceptional leaders make them inevitable. Newt Gingrich belongs in the category of the exceptional. All year -- ruthlessly, brilliantly, obnoxiously -- he worked at hammering together inevitabilities: a balanced federal budget, for one. ... Today, (SET ITAL) because of Gingrich (END ITAL) (emphasis added), the question is not whether a balanced-budget plan will come to pass but when.

"Gingrich has changed the center of gravity. From Franklin Roosevelt onward, Americans came to accept the federal government as the solution to problems, a vast parental presence. ... Newt Gingrich wants to reverse the physics, make American government truly centrifugal, with power flowing out of Washington, devolving to the states."

And what of Clinton's role?

Time continues: "Having organized an insurrectionist crew in the House, Gingrich seized the initiative from a temporarily (SET ITAL) passive president (END ITAL) (emphasis added) and steered the country onto a heading that the speaker accurately proclaimed to be revolutionary." etc...

Do you want me to cut and paste similar articles that praise Clinton as president? What would be the point? In my opinion, however, I have always considered Newt Gringrich
a womanizing buffoon (not to mention a hypocrite).

Kayky: And the only president to inherit an economy worse than the one handed off to Obama was Franklin Roosevelt from Herbert Hoover.

You forgot Reagan. Now you're blaming Hoover for a world-wide depression?

I actually liked Reagan as president even though I often didn't agree with his policies. Hoover's policies would have deepened and lengthened the Great Depression in this country. People recognized this and didn't re-elect him.

I'm all for safety nets, just not hammocks.

Cute. But unhelpful.

Obama can only envy Bush's economic record, apart from the end which came from the housing crash. This was the result of liberals basically making it illegal for banks to properly evaluate home loans, all in the name of 'fairness'.

Sorry, East of Eden. George W. Bush (along with his evil puppetmaster, Dick Chaney) was an absolute disaster as president. He will most likely go down in history as the worst president ever. As usual, when things go south when a republican is president, you blame the "liberals." I hate to be so blunt, but I find your attempt to defend the banks absolutely disgusting.

Kayky:
Perhaps if you turned off Fox News once in a while, you'd find out what is actually happening in the world.


OUR MISSION

The Clinton Foundation works to improve global health, strengthen economies, promote health and wellness, and protect the environment by fostering partnerships among businesses, governments, nongovernmental organizations, and private citizens.

OK, I guess that makes up for the rapes to you.

These unsubstantiated claims are not even worthy of a response.

[East of Eden]

But not Juanita Broadrick and Mrs. Willey?

Juanita Broaddrock filed an affidavit, swearing under oath that Clinton had not raped her.

Uh, you're leaving quite a bit out. From Wikipedia:

"Broaddrick recanted her earlier sworn statement when interviewed by the FBI about the Jones case; the FBI found her account inconclusive, and the affidavit denying the allegations remains her only sworn testimony. Broaddrick later said of the affidavit, "I didn’t want to be forced to testify about one of the most horrific events in my life. I didn't want to go through it again."[2] David Schippers, the Chief Investigative Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee which was holding an inquiry on whether Clinton had committed impeachable offenses, stated that he believed Broaddrick filed the affidavit because of intimidation from Clinton, saying, "She was so terrified. And the reason she was terrified was because she saw what had happened to Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers and all the rest of them."[5] Although Broaddrick claimed that no one had pressured her to file a false affidavit, she complained that she was being watched from parked cars, her home had been broken into, her pets released and her answering machine tape stolen while she and her husband were away briefly, during the House impeachment probe.[5]
In 1984, Broaddrick's nursing facility was adjudged the best in the state, which brought a congratulatory official letter from the governor. On the bottom was a handwritten note from Clinton, saying, "I admire you very much." She reputedly interpreted it as a "thank you" for her silence.[2] Broaddrick said that Clinton tried to apologize to her in 1991, and claimed he had changed. In response to his apologies, as she told The Washington Post, "I told him to go to hell, and I walked off".[6]

I don't know anything about this Mrs Willey you speak of,

She's in here, along with all the others:

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/ar ... ead=164165

but it seems odd to me that no allegations of rape were brought forward during hearings in which the republicans were determined to bring Clinton down.

You apparently don't think perjury and obstruction of justice are a problem, at least when a Democrat does it.

Do you want me to cut and paste similar articles that praise Clinton as president? What would be the point?

The point is the consensus back then even among liberal journalists was that Gingrich was the mover behing the balance budget, Clinton was somewhat forced to go along.

In my opinion, however, I have always considered Newt Gringrich
a womanizing buffoon (not to mention a hypocrite).

Certainly true of Clinton. Newt would have made a much better president than the failed Barry.

I actually liked Reagan as president even though I often didn't agree with his policies. Hoover's policies would have deepened and lengthened the Great Depression in this country. People recognized this and didn't re-elect him.

Factually wrong, Hoover was much closer to you than me. Herbert Hoover raised taxes from 25% to 63%. From Wikipedia:

"Years later libertarians argued that Hoover's economics were statist. Franklin D. Roosevelt blasted the Republican incumbent for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the government dole. Roosevelt attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible."[122] Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism".[123]
Even so, New Dealer Rexford Tugwell[124] later remarked that although no one would say so at the time, "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."

Sorry, East of Eden. George W. Bush (along with his evil puppetmaster, Dick Chaney) was an absolute disaster as president. He will most likely go down in history as the worst president ever.

I am not a Bush fan, but Barry is a far worse president by far.

As usual, when things go south when a republican is president, you blame the "liberals." I hate to be so blunt, but I find your attempt to defend the banks absolutely disgusting.

Do you deny banks were pressured to make risky home loans? Ever hear of the Community Reinvestment Act? Bush tried to rein this in but was rebuffed by Congressional Democrats, as the NYT reported on in 2003:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bush ... ZKyq2-siSo

These unsubstantiated claims are not even worthy of a response.

You seem to often ignore facts you don't like.

[kayky]

Uh, you're leaving quite a bit out. From Wikipedia:

"Broaddrick recanted her earlier sworn statement when interviewed by the FBI about the Jones case; the FBI found her account inconclusive, and the affidavit denying the allegations remains her only sworn testimony. Broaddrick later said of the affidavit, "I didn’t want to be forced to testify about one of the most horrific events in my life. I didn't want to go through it again."[2] David Schippers, the Chief Investigative Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee which was holding an inquiry on whether Clinton had committed impeachable offenses, stated that he believed Broaddrick filed the affidavit because of intimidation from Clinton, saying, "She was so terrified. And the reason she was terrified was because she saw what had happened to Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers and all the rest of them."[5] Although Broaddrick claimed that no one had pressured her to file a false affidavit, she complained that she was being watched from parked cars, her home had been broken into, her pets released and her answering machine tape stolen while she and her husband were away briefly, during the House impeachment probe.[5]
In 1984, Broaddrick's nursing facility was adjudged the best in the state, which brought a congratulatory official letter from the governor. On the bottom was a handwritten note from Clinton, saying, "I admire you very much." She reputedly interpreted it as a "thank you" for her silence.[2] Broaddrick said that Clinton tried to apologize to her in 1991, and claimed he had changed. In response to his apologies, as she told The Washington Post, "I told him to go to hell, and I walked off".[6]

I don't know anything about this Mrs Willey you speak of,

She's in here, along with all the others:

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/ar ... ead=164165

The point is that her affidavit proves that she is a person who will lie under oath. I didn't bother to go to the site about the other woman. I figure, if it had any basis, it would have come up at the impeachment hearings.

You apparently don't think perjury and obstruction of justice are a problem, at least when a Democrat does it.

It should also be an impeachable offense to use lies to drag our country into an unnecessary war in which thousands were killed. But, you know, that's just my opinion.

kayky:
Do you want me to cut and paste similar articles that praise Clinton as president? What would be the point?

The point is the consensus back then even among liberal journalists was that Gingrich was the mover behing the balance budget, Clinton was somewhat forced to go along.

CONSENSUS?

"My colleagues and I have been very appreciative of your [President Clinton’s] support of the Fed over the years, and your commitment to fiscal discipline has been instrumental in achieving what in a few weeks will be the longest economic expansion in the nation’s history."
— Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Board Chairman, January 4, 2000, with President Clinton at Chairman Greenspan’s re-nomination announcement

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994

One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for the "best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit."
— Goldman Sachs, March 1998

"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997

Kayky: In my opinion, however, I have always considered Newt Gringrich
a womanizing buffoon (not to mention a hypocrite).

Certainly true of Clinton. Newt would have made a much better president than the failed Barry.

This one actually made me laugh. Talk about jumping out of the frying pan into the fire!

Factually wrong, Hoover was much closer to you than me. Herbert Hoover raised taxes from 25% to 63%. From Wikipedia:

"Years later libertarians argued that Hoover's economics were statist. Franklin D. Roosevelt blasted the Republican incumbent for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the government dole. Roosevelt attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible."[122] Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism".[123]
Even so, New Dealer Rexford Tugwell[124] later remarked that although no one would say so at the time, "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."

So if you can't defend the republican, you simply claim he was a democrat at heart? I will give Hoover credit for one thing: he built a really nice dam.

I am not a Bush fan, but Barry is a far worse president by far.

Obama will be praised by historians.

Do you deny banks were pressured to make risky home loans? Ever hear of the Community Reinvestment Act? Bush tried to rein this in but was rebuffed by Congressional Democrats, as the NYT reported on in 2003:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bush ... ZKyq2-siSo

I think the banks were giddier than anyone about getting rich during the housing bubble--something that happened under Bush's watch.

Kayky:
These unsubstantiated claims are not even worthy of a response.

You seem to often ignore facts you don't like.

I do ignore unsubstantiated accusations and do not use the term facts
as loosely as you do.

[East of Eden]

Uh, you're leaving quite a bit out. From Wikipedia:

"Broaddrick recanted her earlier sworn statement when interviewed by the FBI about the Jones case; the FBI found her account inconclusive, and the affidavit denying the allegations remains her only sworn testimony. Broaddrick later said of the affidavit, "I didn’t want to be forced to testify about one of the most horrific events in my life. I didn't want to go through it again."[2] David Schippers, the Chief Investigative Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee which was holding an inquiry on whether Clinton had committed impeachable offenses, stated that he believed Broaddrick filed the affidavit because of intimidation from Clinton, saying, "She was so terrified. And the reason she was terrified was because she saw what had happened to Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers and all the rest of them."[5] Although Broaddrick claimed that no one had pressured her to file a false affidavit, she complained that she was being watched from parked cars, her home had been broken into, her pets released and her answering machine tape stolen while she and her husband were away briefly, during the House impeachment probe.[5]
In 1984, Broaddrick's nursing facility was adjudged the best in the state, which brought a congratulatory official letter from the governor. On the bottom was a handwritten note from Clinton, saying, "I admire you very much." She reputedly interpreted it as a "thank you" for her silence.[2] Broaddrick said that Clinton tried to apologize to her in 1991, and claimed he had changed. In response to his apologies, as she told The Washington Post, "I told him to go to hell, and I walked off".[6]

I don't know anything about this Mrs Willey you speak of,

She's in here, along with all the others:

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/ar ... ead=164165

The point is that her affidavit proves that she is a person who will lie under oath.

I don't know about her, but Slick Willie certainly did, being convicted of perjury and losing his law license over it.

I didn't bother to go to the site about the other woman. I figure, if it had any basis, it would have come up at the impeachment hearings.

Why would it, that matter was about perjury and possible obstruction of justice.

It should also be an impeachable offense to use lies to drag our country into an unnecessary war in which thousands were killed. But, you know, that's just my opinion.

Learn the difference between lies and bad intel. If Bush lied, so did Biden and Mrs. Clinton. I doubt Bush said anything they didn't say.

"Biden

It is difficult to overestimate the critical role Biden played in making the tragedy of the Iraq war possible. More than two months prior to the 2002 war resolution even being introduced, in what was widely interpreted as the first sign that Congress would endorse a US invasion of Iraq, Biden declared on August 4 that the United States was probably going to war. In his powerful position as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he orchestrated a propaganda show designed to sell the war to skeptical colleagues and the America public by ensuring that dissenting voices would not get a fair hearing.

As Scott Ritter, the former chief UN weapons inspector, noted at the time, "For Sen. Biden's Iraq hearings to be anything more than a political sham used to invoke a modern-day Gulf of Tonkin resolution-equivalent for Iraq, his committee will need to ask hard questions - and demand hard facts - concerning the real nature of the weapons threat posed by Iraq."

It soon became apparent that Biden had no intention of doing so. Biden refused to even allow Ritter himself - who knew more about Iraq's WMD capabilities than anyone and would have testified that Iraq had achieved at least qualitative disarmament - to testify. Ironically, on "Meet the Press" in 2007, Biden defended his false claims about Iraqi WMD by insisting that "everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them."

Biden also refused to honor requests by some of his Democratic colleagues to include some of the leading anti-war scholars familiar with Iraq and Middle East (myself included) in the hearings. These involved both those who would have reiterated Ritter's conclusions about nonexistent Iraqi WMD capabilities as well as those prepared to testify that a US invasion of Iraq would likely set back the struggle against al-Qaeda, alienate the United States from much of the world and precipitate bloody, urban, counterinsurgency warfare amid rising terrorism, Islamist extremism and sectarian violence. All of these predictions ended up being exactly what transpired.

Nor did Biden even call some of the dissenting officials in the Pentagon or State Department who were willing to challenge the alarmist claims of their ideologically-driven superiors. He was willing, however, to allow Iraqi defectors of highly dubious credentials to make false testimony about the vast quantities of WMD materiel supposedly in Saddam Hussein's possession. Ritter correctly accused Biden of having "preordained a conclusion that seeks to remove Saddam Hussein from power regardless of the facts and ... using these hearings to provide political cover for a massive military attack on Iraq."

Rather than being a hapless victim of the Bush administration's lies and manipulation, Biden was calling for a US invasion of Iraq and making false statements regarding Saddam Hussein's supposed possession of WMD years before President George W. Bush even came to office.

As far back as 1998, Biden was calling for a US invasion of that oil rich country. Even though UN inspectors and the UN-led disarmament process had led to the elimination of Iraq's WMD threat, Biden - in an effort to discredit the world body and make an excuse for war - insisted that UN inspectors could never be trusted to do the job. During Senate hearings on Iraq in September of that year, Biden told Ritter, "As long as Saddam's at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam's program relative to weapons of mass destruction."

Calling for military action on the scale of the Gulf War seven years earlier, he continued, "The only way we're going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we're going to end up having to start it alone." He told the Marine veteran, "it's going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking Saddam down."

When Ritter tried to make the case that President Bill Clinton's proposed large-scale bombing of Iraq could jeopardize the UN inspections process, Biden condescendingly replied that decisions on the use of military force were "beyond your pay grade." As Ritter predicted, when Clinton ordered UN inspectors out of Iraq in December of that year and followed up with a four-day bombing campaign known as Operation Desert Fox, Saddam was provided with an excuse to refuse to allow the inspectors to return. Biden then conveniently used Saddam's failure to allow them to return as an excuse for going to war four years later.

In the face of widespread skepticism over administration claims regarding Iraq's military capabilities, Biden declared that President Bush was justified in being concerned about Iraq's alleged pursuit of WMD. Even though Iraq had eliminated its chemical weapons arsenal by the mid-1990s, Biden insisted categorically in the weeks leading up to the Iraq war resolution that Saddam Hussein still had chemical weapons. Even though there is no evidence that Iraq had ever developed deployable biological weapons and its biological weapons program had been eliminated some years earlier, Biden insisted that Saddam had biological weapons, including anthrax and that "he may have a strain" of small pox. And, even though the International Atomic Energy Agency had reported as far back as 1998 that there was no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had any ongoing nuclear program, Biden insisted Saddam was "seeking nuclear weapons."

Said Biden, "One thing is clear: These weapons must be dislodged from Saddam, or Saddam must be dislodged from power." He did not believe proof of the existence of any actual weapons to dislodge was necessary, however, insisting that "If we wait for the danger from Saddam to become clear, it could be too late." He further defended President Bush by falsely claiming, "He did not snub the U.N. or our allies. He did not dismiss a new inspection regime. He did not ignore the Congress. At each pivotal moment, he has chosen a course of moderation and deliberation."

In an Orwellian twist of language designed to justify the war resolution, which gave President Bush the unprecedented authority to invade a country on the far side of the world at the time and circumstances of his own choosing, Biden claimed, "I do not believe this is a rush to war. I believe it is a march to peace and security. I believe that failure to overwhelmingly support this resolution is likely to enhance the prospects that war will occur."

It is also important to note that Biden supported an invasion in the full knowledge that it would not be quick and easy and that the United States would have to occupy Iraq for an extended period, declaring, "We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after."

Despite all this, Obama offered him the vice presidency and has given him a leading role in his administration's foreign policy.

Clinton

The most critical foreign policy appointment is that of secretary of state. For this position and despite enormous skepticism regarding the war among most State Department veterans, President Obama chose Clinton, one of the Senate's most outspoken supporters of Bush's Iraq policy. In order to justify her vote to authorize the US invasion of Iraq in October 2002, despite widespread and public skepticism expressed by arms control experts over the Bush administration's claims that Iraq had somehow rearmed itself, Senator Clinton was insisting that Iraq's possession of biological and chemical weapons was "not in doubt" and was "undisputed." She also falsely claimed that Iraq was "trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Nonexistent WMD were not the only false claims Clinton made to justify a US invasion of Iraq. For example, she insisted that Saddam had given aid, comfort and sanctuary to al-Qaeda terrorists

Even after US forces invaded and occupied Iraq and confirmed that Iraq did not have WMD, active WMD programs, offensive delivery systems or ties to al-Qaeda as she and other supporters of the war had claimed, Clinton defended her vote to authorize the invasion anyway. As a result, she essentially acknowledged that Iraq's alleged possession of WMD was not really what motivated her vote to authorize the war after all, but was instead a ruse to frighten the American people into supporting the invasion. Her actual motivation appears to have been about oil and empire.

During the first four years following the invasion, Clinton was a steadfast supporter of Bush administration policy. When Rep. John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) made his first call for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq in November 2005, she denounced his effort, calling a withdrawal of US forces a big mistake. In 2006, when Senator Kerry sponsored an amendment that would have required the redeployment of US forces from Iraq in order to advance a political solution to the growing sectarian strife, she voted against it. She came out against the war only when she began her presidential campaign, recognizing that public opinion had turned so decisively in opposition that there was no hope of her securing the Democratic nomination unless she changed her position.

She has also decried Iran's "involvement in and influence over Iraq," an ironic complaint for someone who voted to authorize the overthrow of the anti-Iranian secular government of Saddam Hussein despite his widely predicted replacement by pro-Iranian Shiite fundamentalist parties. She also went on record repeating a whole series of false, exaggerated and unproven charges by Bush administration officials regarding Iranian support for the Iraqi insurgency, even though the vast majority of foreign support for the insurgency had come from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, and that the majority of the insurgents are fanatically anti-Iranian and anti-Shiite."

Stephen Zunes

CONSENSUS?

"My colleagues and I have been very appreciative of your [President Clinton’s] support of the Fed over the years, and your commitment to fiscal discipline has been instrumental in achieving what in a few weeks will be the longest economic expansion in the nation’s history."
— Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Board Chairman, January 4, 2000, with President Clinton at Chairman Greenspan’s re-nomination announcement

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994

One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for the "best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit."
— Goldman Sachs, March 1998

"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997

I will give Clinton credit for going along with GOP budget cutting measures. Obama is far too much of an ideologue to do that.

So if you can't defend the republican,

Why do you assume I defend every republican? I assume you don't defend the democrats who started the KKK, correct?

Obama will be praised by historians.

http://impeachobama2013.blogspot.com/

you simply claim he was a democrat at heart?

Like Bush, he was for too many democratic policies. I am a conservative first, a Republican secondly.

I think the banks were giddier than anyone about getting rich during the housing bubble--something that happened under Bush's watch.

Did you even read my link? Bush tried to rein this problem in but was stopped by Barney Frank and other congressional democrats, according to the NYT.

I do ignore unsubstantiated accusations and do not use the term facts
as loosely as you do.

Can we at least agree on the obvious, that Clinton was a serial sexual predator who used his position of power to do so?

[kayky]

I don't know about her, but Slick Willie certainly did, being convicted of perjury and losing his law license over it.

Clinton did not lose his law liscense. It was suspended for a number of years, and he just didn't bother to renew it.

Why would it, that matter was about perjury and possible obstruction of justice.

Are you serious? If the republicans could have brought him up on rape charges, they certainly would have!

Learn the difference between lies and bad intel. If Bush lied, so did Biden and Mrs. Clinton. I doubt Bush said anything they didn't say.

"Biden

It is difficult to overestimate the critical role Biden played in making the tragedy of the Iraq war possible. More than two months prior to the 2002 war resolution even being introduced, in what was widely interpreted as the first sign that Congress would endorse a US invasion of Iraq, Biden declared on August 4 that the United States was probably going to war. In his powerful position as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he orchestrated a propaganda show designed to sell the war to skeptical colleagues and the America public by ensuring that dissenting voices would not get a fair hearing.

As Scott Ritter, the former chief UN weapons inspector, noted at the time, "For Sen. Biden's Iraq hearings to be anything more than a political sham used to invoke a modern-day Gulf of Tonkin resolution-equivalent for Iraq, his committee will need to ask hard questions - and demand hard facts - concerning the real nature of the weapons threat posed by Iraq."

It soon became apparent that Biden had no intention of doing so. Biden refused to even allow Ritter himself - who knew more about Iraq's WMD capabilities than anyone and would have testified that Iraq had achieved at least qualitative disarmament - to testify. Ironically, on "Meet the Press" in 2007, Biden defended his false claims about Iraqi WMD by insisting that "everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them."

Biden also refused to honor requests by some of his Democratic colleagues to include some of the leading anti-war scholars familiar with Iraq and Middle East (myself included) in the hearings. These involved both those who would have reiterated Ritter's conclusions about nonexistent Iraqi WMD capabilities as well as those prepared to testify that a US invasion of Iraq would likely set back the struggle against al-Qaeda, alienate the United States from much of the world and precipitate bloody, urban, counterinsurgency warfare amid rising terrorism, Islamist extremism and sectarian violence. All of these predictions ended up being exactly what transpired.

Nor did Biden even call some of the dissenting officials in the Pentagon or State Department who were willing to challenge the alarmist claims of their ideologically-driven superiors. He was willing, however, to allow Iraqi defectors of highly dubious credentials to make false testimony about the vast quantities of WMD materiel supposedly in Saddam Hussein's possession. Ritter correctly accused Biden of having "preordained a conclusion that seeks to remove Saddam Hussein from power regardless of the facts and ... using these hearings to provide political cover for a massive military attack on Iraq."

Rather than being a hapless victim of the Bush administration's lies and manipulation, Biden was calling for a US invasion of Iraq and making false statements regarding Saddam Hussein's supposed possession of WMD years before President George W. Bush even came to office.

As far back as 1998, Biden was calling for a US invasion of that oil rich country. Even though UN inspectors and the UN-led disarmament process had led to the elimination of Iraq's WMD threat, Biden - in an effort to discredit the world body and make an excuse for war - insisted that UN inspectors could never be trusted to do the job. During Senate hearings on Iraq in September of that year, Biden told Ritter, "As long as Saddam's at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam's program relative to weapons of mass destruction."

Calling for military action on the scale of the Gulf War seven years earlier, he continued, "The only way we're going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we're going to end up having to start it alone." He told the Marine veteran, "it's going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking Saddam down."

When Ritter tried to make the case that President Bill Clinton's proposed large-scale bombing of Iraq could jeopardize the UN inspections process, Biden condescendingly replied that decisions on the use of military force were "beyond your pay grade." As Ritter predicted, when Clinton ordered UN inspectors out of Iraq in December of that year and followed up with a four-day bombing campaign known as Operation Desert Fox, Saddam was provided with an excuse to refuse to allow the inspectors to return. Biden then conveniently used Saddam's failure to allow them to return as an excuse for going to war four years later.

In the face of widespread skepticism over administration claims regarding Iraq's military capabilities, Biden declared that President Bush was justified in being concerned about Iraq's alleged pursuit of WMD. Even though Iraq had eliminated its chemical weapons arsenal by the mid-1990s, Biden insisted categorically in the weeks leading up to the Iraq war resolution that Saddam Hussein still had chemical weapons. Even though there is no evidence that Iraq had ever developed deployable biological weapons and its biological weapons program had been eliminated some years earlier, Biden insisted that Saddam had biological weapons, including anthrax and that "he may have a strain" of small pox. And, even though the International Atomic Energy Agency had reported as far back as 1998 that there was no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had any ongoing nuclear program, Biden insisted Saddam was "seeking nuclear weapons."

Said Biden, "One thing is clear: These weapons must be dislodged from Saddam, or Saddam must be dislodged from power." He did not believe proof of the existence of any actual weapons to dislodge was necessary, however, insisting that "If we wait for the danger from Saddam to become clear, it could be too late." He further defended President Bush by falsely claiming, "He did not snub the U.N. or our allies. He did not dismiss a new inspection regime. He did not ignore the Congress. At each pivotal moment, he has chosen a course of moderation and deliberation."

In an Orwellian twist of language designed to justify the war resolution, which gave President Bush the unprecedented authority to invade a country on the far side of the world at the time and circumstances of his own choosing, Biden claimed, "I do not believe this is a rush to war. I believe it is a march to peace and security. I believe that failure to overwhelmingly support this resolution is likely to enhance the prospects that war will occur."

It is also important to note that Biden supported an invasion in the full knowledge that it would not be quick and easy and that the United States would have to occupy Iraq for an extended period, declaring, "We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after."

Despite all this, Obama offered him the vice presidency and has given him a leading role in his administration's foreign policy.

Clinton

The most critical foreign policy appointment is that of secretary of state. For this position and despite enormous skepticism regarding the war among most State Department veterans, President Obama chose Clinton, one of the Senate's most outspoken supporters of Bush's Iraq policy. In order to justify her vote to authorize the US invasion of Iraq in October 2002, despite widespread and public skepticism expressed by arms control experts over the Bush administration's claims that Iraq had somehow rearmed itself, Senator Clinton was insisting that Iraq's possession of biological and chemical weapons was "not in doubt" and was "undisputed." She also falsely claimed that Iraq was "trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Nonexistent WMD were not the only false claims Clinton made to justify a US invasion of Iraq. For example, she insisted that Saddam had given aid, comfort and sanctuary to al-Qaeda terrorists

Even after US forces invaded and occupied Iraq and confirmed that Iraq did not have WMD, active WMD programs, offensive delivery systems or ties to al-Qaeda as she and other supporters of the war had claimed, Clinton defended her vote to authorize the invasion anyway. As a result, she essentially acknowledged that Iraq's alleged possession of WMD was not really what motivated her vote to authorize the war after all, but was instead a ruse to frighten the American people into supporting the invasion. Her actual motivation appears to have been about oil and empire.

During the first four years following the invasion, Clinton was a steadfast supporter of Bush administration policy. When Rep. John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) made his first call for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq in November 2005, she denounced his effort, calling a withdrawal of US forces a big mistake. In 2006, when Senator Kerry sponsored an amendment that would have required the redeployment of US forces from Iraq in order to advance a political solution to the growing sectarian strife, she voted against it. She came out against the war only when she began her presidential campaign, recognizing that public opinion had turned so decisively in opposition that there was no hope of her securing the Democratic nomination unless she changed her position.

She has also decried Iran's "involvement in and influence over Iraq," an ironic complaint for someone who voted to authorize the overthrow of the anti-Iranian secular government of Saddam Hussein despite his widely predicted replacement by pro-Iranian Shiite fundamentalist parties. She also went on record repeating a whole series of false, exaggerated and unproven charges by Bush administration officials regarding Iranian support for the Iraqi insurgency, even though the vast majority of foreign support for the insurgency had come from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, and that the majority of the insurgents are fanatically anti-Iranian and anti-Shiite."

Stephen Zunes

Bush used "intel" to support his own determination to invade Iraq. It was his deception and his blunder. But even this you try to blame on democrats!!

I will give Clinton credit for going along with GOP budget cutting measures. Obama is far too much of an ideologue to do that.

This is actually funny. The current republicans in Congress will filibuster their own ideas if they get a hint that Obama might support them!

Why do you assume I defend every republican? I assume you don't defend the democrats who started the KKK, correct?

You do know that democrats of this ilk are now republicans, right?

Like Bush, he was for too many democratic policies. I am a conservative first, a Republican secondly.

And a successful president must gravitate to the center.

Did you even read my link? Bush tried to rein this problem in but was stopped by Barney Frank and other congressional democrats, according to the NYT.

The other day I posted a NYT article, and you said they were not a reliable source. Which is it?

Can we at least agree on the obvious, that Clinton was a serial sexual predator who used his position of power to do so?

We can agree that Clinton was like many men who find themselves in power.