Bill Clinton is Spinning Lies
Jan 8, 2008 Political
This video from ABC is Bill Clinton answering some questions on behalf of his wife. During this video he calls Obama’s campaign the biggest fairy tale out there and insinuates that Obama has gotten an easy ride from the press. Clinton also said that he [Bill] had been attacked as a crook. He then said that Ken Starr spent 70 million dollars to indict a bunch of innocent people and to find out I [Bill] would not take a nickel.
Now that whopper Bill just told was the biggest fairy tale out there. Ken Starr did not indict anyone who was innocent and no one ever determined that Bill and Hillary were honest people. There is a big difference between not having enough evidence or not getting indicted and being innocent. Bill Clinton is in no way innocent. He took a whole lot of nickels from the Chinese. He took lots of money from the folks at Tyson foods and he took lots of money from drug dealers bringing drugs in through the Mena airport in Arkansas.
Bill Clinton is certainly a criminal and the real problem he has is that he has told the same lies for so long that he believes them to be true. Anyone with any sense what so ever knows that Clinton and his wife have been neck deep in crime since they started out in public life. The country went through eight years of dishonesty from these people and now they want us to put them back in there as if nothing ever went wrong. Their White House was filled with scandal after scandal from the day they moved in until the day they moved out. Bill and Hillary can claim that they were found innocent but they are lying in an attempt to rewrite history.
Anyone who believes that these two are honest needs to have his head examined. They are criminals of the highest order and they will take money from anywhere, say anything, and change history in order to get more power.
We have to hope that Hillary gets beaten badly in New Hampshire and in all other states for as long as she stays in the race. If she keeps losing her money will dry up and we will finally be rid of the Clinton crime family.
Remember, when Hillary was crying and said she did not want us to go backwards the us she was talking about is she and Bill.
Maybe she cried because Bill screwed things up for her when he was taking his turn. Maybe he is fighting fiercely for her and telling those fairy tale lies because he knows that she would have been a shoo in had he acted like an adult when he was president.
Nah, they have been criminals all along and he is lying because it is what he does best…
Tags: Clinton, criminal, lies, rewriting history
Is New Hampshire Hillary’s Exit Poll?
Jan 7, 2008 Political
If we are lucky, by this time tomorrow Hillary Clinton’s campaign will be gasping for its last breaths of air and it dies a long overdue death. I realize that even if she loses New Hampshire she could go on but there are indications that many of her supporters have secretly said she is not going much further and there are also indications that she is or will soon be strapped for cash. What once seemed a juggernaut of political and money raising efficiency is now heading down to the bottom very rapidly.
Hillary was out giving a please vote for me speech today when someone asked her how she does it. Hillary got tears in her eyes and her voiced cracked a few times during her answer which largely consisted of her her desire to make the country better and her beliefs blah, blah. The truth is Hillary expected to be the next president. She has been planning her chance for years and her pact with Bill looked like manifest destiny when she was way ahead in the polls and raising millions upon millions of dollars. She started out asking people to max out by giving the largest amount possible for both the primary and the general election. Now she is just asking for the amount needed to continue in the primary.
Hillary Clinton spent a fortune in Iowa and has a third place show for it. She has blown millions of dollars to convince people to vote for her and it is not working. She has brought out the big guns in her husband and while he is exciting many people it is because of their cult like worship of him and his decadent ways and not so much for her. They seem not to like her very much and I don’t really blame them. Hillary was all set to be the next president and now it looks like she might bow out. This is why she is crying though some might think she is trying to show she is actually a caring human. In reality, she can hear her dreams shattering and that shatter sounds like Senator Obama.
The other thing to consider is if she gets this emotional about this campaign how will she handle any issues that arise if she were president. Seems that this is the take that John Edwards has on the event and who could blame him? If Hillary drops out he has a better chance against Obama.
Others with similar posts:
The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Mark My Words, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, DragonLady’s World, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Nuke’s, third world county, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate’s Cove, Global American Discourse, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Wake Up America, Dumb Ox Daily News, Stageleft, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Let Me Answer for Hillary
Jan 6, 2008 Political
Hillary Clinton told New Hampshire voters that their primary process would be more representative than the Iowa caucus. Clinton said that people who had to work or were out of the state would not be disenfranchised. The article indicates that candidates usually praise the grassroots of the Iowa caucus. Hilary was praising it prior to getting her hat handed to her in the caucus process. She came in third so the process, not the candidate must be flawed.
Nevada has a caucus coming up and its rules are the very same as those in Iowa. The Clinton campaign was asked if its candidate felt the same way about Nevada:
“No. Sen. Clinton is absolutely committed to the Nevada caucus and we expect to do well,” said Clinton campaign spokeswoman Hilarie Grey in an e-mail.
Grey did not respond to requests to explain why Nevada escapes Clinton’s critique. RGJ.com
Of course the campaign did not respond to explain because once again the smartest woman in the world stuck her foot in her mouth. Stevie Wonder can see why she did not answer but let me go ahead and answer for Hillary and her campaign.
The reason that Nevada escapes the criticism that she had for Iowa is that Nevada has not voted (or caucused) yet. Hillary still needs them and until the voting is over there she will heap praise upon them much as she did in Iowa.
She was full of praise for them and their process and after she lost she talked about how the system disenfranchises voters. I do not disagree with that but I have held that opinion all along and have mentioned it a few times. Hillary had two different positions. In reality, she pandered to the Iowans until she lost and then she left and talked badly about their process. However, since Nevada has not voted she refuses to have the same criticisms. She is a hypocrite and for the world’s smartest woman she sure is stupid. Remember, to Hillary only the unthinking in Iowa voted for Obama.
Remember, Hillary has use for anything only so long as it can benefit her. The minute it loses value to her it is worthless in her mind. Keep this in mind when you are voting. Make her as worthless as she really is by voting for any other candidate.
Tags: Hillary, iowa, lashing out, pandering
How Will Ron Paul Do It?
Jan 6, 2008 Political
I have not decided on a candidate yet and since my state primary is after Super Tuesday it might not matter. I have tried to give everyone of them a fair shot at earning my vote. I have watched Ron Paul as I have the others and I like some of the things that he says. I agree with most of his domestic policy ideas and some of his foreign. I have a hard time taking his blame America for everything position. Yes, we as a country have done some things that are not nice. But we are not to blame for all the world’s woes. I would love to see us bring our troops home from Germany, Japan and South Korea and Iraq (but only after we win). I just have some trouble with his insistence that we caused the attack to happen and that our only interest is oil.
The thing that bothers me most about Ron Paul is that he never says HOW he is going to accomplish the things he espouses. He says that he will abolish the IRS. How will he do that when it will take Congress to pass the legislation? Paul says that he will go back to the gold standard. How will he do this without Congress enacting it? I like some of what Ron Paul says but he never tells me how he is going to get it done. Considering he has been in Congress for quite some time I assume he knows that Presidents do very little (regarding these kinds of issues) other than set an agenda and either sign or veto what Congress passes. Without Congress Ron Paul cannot do anything that he says he will. Paul cannot change things because of the very Constitution that he believes in following (and rightly so) and that means nothing will ever get done, regardless of who is president, without Congress.
This is not to say that the other candidates will accomplish what they say because they will face the same hurdles but at least they say how they intend to do things. McCain says he will work with members of both parties to hammer out bills they can agree upon. Thompson says he will put forth plans to work with Congress to get his things done. That is true for all the candidates except for Ron Paul. I like the guy and I like what he believes in but I want to know the HOW part.
As I stated, I have not selected any candidate and there might not be as many by the time I get a chance but I want to give them all a fair look. I want each to have a fair chance at convincing me why I should vote for them.
If some of his supporters, after reading this post, could comment and tell me how he will do these things I would be appreciative. I am not talking about the fringe folks who attack and go all nuts when someone writes anything perceived as negative about Paul. I mean the folks who support him and know his policies. If you know how he will do it or can steer me in the right direction then I would appreciate it.
Please don’t tell me why I should vote for him. Tell me what he is going to do and how he will do it. Convince me that he is the best person for the job.
Tags: assistance, how, method, revolution, ron paul
Hillary Has Howard Dean Moment and Other Debate Fun
Jan 6, 2008 Political
There were two debates tonight the first being the Republicans followed by the Democrats. I will briefly say that the Republicans beat up Mitt Romney fairly well and that Fred Thompson looked like the winner in this one. Ron Paul held his own and John McCain was on target most of the night. Rudy invoked 9/11 and Ronald Reagan every other sentence. The Democratic debate was much more lively and was more fun to watch.
Hillary Clinton had a melt down and I think it will show on Tuesday. I admit that she did not go negative on Obama in the fashion that I thought she would but it might be because John Edwards sided with Obama and they tag teamed her pretty good. She did not hammer Obama when moderator Charlie Gibson gave her a huge opening to do so by asking her to describe the issues that separate them. Her Howard Dean moment came when she got very angry after Edwards said that the status quo (He pointed to Hillary) would always attack agents of change like him and Obama. She was obviously frustrated and when she addressed the comment she became visibly angry and animated. She would have done better if her answer was shorter and she was more sane. Her campaign is saying she showed strength but the reality is the media is hammering her and the undecided voters said that Obama was the change agent and did not appreciate her response.
As for the rest of the Democratic debate, I noticed a few other Hillary gaffes. One of the first questions dealt with Pakistan. The question dealt with al Qaeda building up along the border. The question was, if we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden was there and the Pakistani government would not go attack him or the AQ terrorists would they, as president, attack the area? They asked Obama first and he said absolutely. Then Gibson said that this was the same as the Bush doctrine of preemption. Obama said no because we had actionable intelligence (as if the intelligence from all over the world that Bush had was not actionable). Hillary said that if we tried diplomacy and it failed she would but that we had to be careful. She then talked about how they (she and Bill) launched a missile based on intelligence that OBL was someplace and he was not there. She said we had to be careful. I believe that they launched the missile because soil samples indicated that a building was being used to make chemical weapons. It turned out to be an aspirin factory (I am sure this is what she was talking about). This means, if it is the ASA factory, that she lied about why we bombed it. Additionally, she failed to mention the three times that we had OBL in our sites, on camera or via witnesses, no doubt he was there, and she and Bill refused to pull the trigger. Details, details. They bombed the aspirin factory to take everyone’s minds off the Monica problems. There was one other instance where we launched missiles and then called the country to tell them and we gave them enough warning that they were able to warn OBL. If this is what she was talking about then the intelligence was right and the method flawed. Now there could have been other incidents but it is doubtful since Clinton worked hard at not getting OBL.
Another security question dealt with a nuclear bomb being detonated in a US city. It was a two parter and the questions associated were (paraphrased); 1. The day after what do we wished we would have done? and 2. What do we do now? None of them answered these directly though Obama got closest to the what do we wish. However, all who answered said that we would find out who did it and we would attack them with all we have. Charlie Gibson made the point that anyone who would do this would not be from a country or have a government’s blessing to do it. Hillary said that they might not have a country but they had to train and plan somewhere and we would find out where that was and attack it. She said there would be no difference between the people who did it and the the people who let them plan and train in their country.
Check me on this but wasn’t George Bush the one who said that we would make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them? Wasn’t George Bush also the one who said that we will attack first to prevent being attacked? Their admission that they would violate the sovereignty of Pakistan to hit OBL means they would use preemptive warfare and wage war in a country that did not attack us to get our enemies, or the Bush Doctrine. I don’t disagree with the idea but I have not been using Bush’s name in vain and telling voters that I would be different than he. I am not out there saying that George Bush mismanaged the war. They have all been criticizing the war and the way Bush has operated and yet they are willing to use the same tactics to protect our country. The MSM will not likely focus on these things because they are Democrats. Only Republicans are evil in the eyes of the MSM.
I did agree with Hillary and she showed some foreign policy savvy when she said that once we launched the missiles toward Pakistan we would have to notify that government because of the tensions with India we did not want them to think that it was India attacking. I agree but we should not call until a few minutes before impact so that no warnings can be issued.
All in all the Democratic debate was more fun to watch than the Republicans. The Republicans were mostly civil (though they really beat up Romney) and had differing approaches to the issues. The donks attacked each other and were fighting like alley cats. Governor Richardson said he had been to hostage negotiations that were more civil (the quote of the night from the left).
Hillary did not have a good night. Her response to the change issue will haunt her and I think she will lose New Hampshire by 10 points.
I can just hear her now in her best Dean voice; Yeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaa.
Others:
Political Punch
ADDENDUM: I forgot a great part. Hillary, while claiming to be the champion of change, said something about being the first woman president and how that is change. Obama was too classy to say it but wouldn’t the first black guy as president be just as real a change? Hillary played her gender card. She said before that she was just another candidate. Now she is playing the woman part. Desperate times call for desperate measures…
Tags: dean moment, debate, democrat, Hillary, hillary meltdown, Obama, republican