Pres Bill Clinton Bitch Slaps Chris Wallace on FOX

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Jason please see the links/graphs and read the excerpts. I am not the cruel one here, these folks are doing this to themselves.........not only that, but Iraqis themselves believe our continued presence there is causing more trouble than it is solving. We arent really saving lives either......because last time I looked innocent folks on all sides of this conflict continue to DIE

If we leave now, it will be utter chaos by all predictions and no matter what any public poll says. But, if you think differently and that taking a little more time to at least try and do it right, so be it - also, if I am not mistaken, those graphs support some sort of stage departure over time, which is what i am talking about as opposed to everyone leaving today, which is I think what you are talking about.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

If we leave now, it will be utter chaos by all predictions and no matter what any public poll says. But, if you think differently and that taking a little more time to at least try and do it right, so be it - also, if I am not mistaken, those graphs support some sort of stage departure over time, which is what i am talking about as opposed to everyone leaving today, which is I think what you are talking about.

Jason, its an impossibility to leave "today" but I certainly believe we need to get out ASAP. I dont think we're doing the good we deceive ourselves we are doing Im not sure how our staying there longer will do any real good since our presence inflames the population and apparently the locals no longer have much confidence in us and want their own troops/police to take over....

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Jason, its an impossibility to leave "today" but I certainly believe we need to get out ASAP. I dont think we're doing the good we deceive ourselves we are doing Im not sure how our staying there longer will do any real good since our presence inflames the population and apparently the locals no longer have much confidence in us and want their own troops/police to take over....

I was confused by your lang. about getting out "now." If you think a year is cool for a phased withdrawal, which is what I and many of not most of the D's are talking about, then we agree.

Interestingly, I am unsure I believe that poll. I know many guys who have come back (and sadly gone again) and they say the vast majority of the people are happy they are there to stop the violence. Also, only a small percentage of Iraq sees any significant violence, so the US presence in the non violent areas is mostly for rebuilding, training, etc. So, I think it is not all bad, though I do think we need to leave within the year.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I was confused by your lang. about getting out "now." If you think a year is cool for a phased withdrawal, which is what I and many of not most of the D's are talking about, then we agree.

Interestingly, I am unsure I believe that poll. I know many guys who have come back (and sadly gone again) and they say the vast majority of the people are happy they are there to stop the violence. Also, only a small percentage of Iraq sees any significant violence, so the US presence in the non violent areas is mostly for rebuilding, training, etc. So, I think it is not all bad, though I do think we need to leave within the year.

that IS interesting, because just this morning I heard Amy Goodman interview a journalist who was serving in Iraq and he had the complete opposite perception. According to him, the soldiers over there are savvy to the fact they got duped and that they arent being dealt with honestly and most dont agree with the reason they are there....not only that, the facts are being deliberately distorted by the military higher ups and journalism is being censored. In case you're interested, this guy has a blog site, Chokehold in Iraq

as for when we should leave, I think we should be making plans to get out ASAP. the sooner the better. Realistically I know it wont be in a week or even a month, but for cripes sake, lets not drag this out. The people want us out, and I say they should have their country back and let them sort out their own affairs. Yes, we goofed and made a mistake, but we cant fix it. we cant.

[strandinthewind]

I am not saying the soldiers are happy, etc. I am saying they, despite any feelings they may have against why they are there, have commented that the Iraqi people are greatful they are there and they are, for the most part, doing really good things. I mean even La Nicks commented on this when she told us about the soldiers at Walter Reed.

And, I get that we cannot totally fix it. But, we can do our best to get it mostly secure before we leave. Again, it is a small percentage of the country that is fighting now and some, but certainly not all, of that fighting is being caused by outsiders. So, I say we get the govt. and military in place and move on.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I am not saying the soldiers are happy, etc. I am saying they, despite any feelings they may have against why they are there, have commented that the Iraqi people are greatful they are there and they are, for the most part, doing really good things. I mean even La Nicks commented on this when she told us about the soldiers at Walter Reed.

And, I get that we cannot totally fix it. But, we can do our best to get it mostly secure before we leave. Again, it is a small percentage of the country that is fighting now and some, but certainly not all, of that fighting is being caused by outsiders. So, I say we get the govt. and military in place and move on.

Even if by some miracle we did manage to effect some sort of stability, dont you know that the minute we leave it will be chaos again anyway?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Even if by some miracle we did manage to effect some sort of stability, dont you know that the minute we leave it will be chaos again anyway?

My point is the vast majority of the country is not in chaos now

Also - once we are gone, we are gone. But the UN will always help Iraq as will all of the modern world as they have oil and its production cannot be stopped.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

My point is the vast majority of the country is not in chaos now

Also - once we are gone, we are gone. But the UN will always help Iraq as will all of the modern world as they have oil and its production cannot be stopped.

I dont know what the "vast majority" is experiencing and I doubt you do either...

but I agree that other nations/the UN should step in and do what they can.

[strandinthewind]

Giuliani Defends Clinton on 9/11 Efforts

By MATT SEDENSKY
Associated Press Writer

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani defended Bill Clinton on Wednesday over the former president's counterterrorism efforts, saying recent criticism on preventing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is wrong.

Political bickering over which president — Clinton or George W. Bush — missed more opportunities to prevent the attacks has been escalating since Clinton gave a combative interview on "Fox News Sunday" in which he defended his efforts to kill Osama bin Laden.


"The idea of trying to cast blame on President Clinton is just wrong for many, many reasons, not the least of which is I don't think he deserves it," Giuliani said in response to a question after an appearance with fellow Republican Charlie Crist, who is running for governor. "I don't think President Bush deserves it. The people who deserve blame for Sept. 11, I think we should remind ourselves, are the terrorists — the Islamic fanatics — who came here and killed us and want to come here again and do it."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenged Clinton's claim that he did more than many of his conservative critics to pursue bin Laden, and she accused the Democrat of leaving no comprehensive plan to fight al-Qaida.

Giuliani said he believed Clinton, like his successor, did everything he could with the information he was provided.

"Every American president I've known would have given his life to prevent an attack like that. That includes President Clinton, President Bush," the former mayor said. "They did the best they could with the information they had at the time."

Giuliani also said a recently declassified report that said the Iraq war had become a "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists demonstrated the need to continue the fight there.

"The jihadists very much want a victory in Iraq. They feel that if they could defeat us in Iraq they will have a great victory for terrorism," Giuliani said. "What that should do is organize us to say if they want a big victory in Iraq then we have to deprive them of that victory."

Giuliani said he was "very interested in considering" a run for president but would not make a decision until after the November election.

___

Copyright 2006, The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP Online news report may not be published, broadcast or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/shar...i_Clinton.html

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Giuliani Defends Clinton on 9/11 Efforts

By MATT SEDENSKY
Associated Press Writer

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani defended Bill Clinton on Wednesday over the former president's counterterrorism efforts, saying recent criticism on preventing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is wrong.

Political bickering over which president — Clinton or George W. Bush — missed more opportunities to prevent the attacks has been escalating since Clinton gave a combative interview on "Fox News Sunday" in which he defended his efforts to kill Osama bin Laden.


"The idea of trying to cast blame on President Clinton is just wrong for many, many reasons, not the least of which is I don't think he deserves it," Giuliani said in response to a question after an appearance with fellow Republican Charlie Crist, who is running for governor. "I don't think President Bush deserves it. The people who deserve blame for Sept. 11, I think we should remind ourselves, are the terrorists — the Islamic fanatics — who came here and killed us and want to come here again and do it."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenged Clinton's claim that he did more than many of his conservative critics to pursue bin Laden, and she accused the Democrat of leaving no comprehensive plan to fight al-Qaida.

Giuliani said he believed Clinton, like his successor, did everything he could with the information he was provided.

"Every American president I've known would have given his life to prevent an attack like that. That includes President Clinton, President Bush," the former mayor said. "They did the best they could with the information they had at the time."

Giuliani also said a recently declassified report that said the Iraq war had become a "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists demonstrated the need to continue the fight there.

"The jihadists very much want a victory in Iraq. They feel that if they could defeat us in Iraq they will have a great victory for terrorism," Giuliani said. "What that should do is organize us to say if they want a big victory in Iraq then we have to deprive them of that victory."

Giuliani said he was "very interested in considering" a run for president but would not make a decision until after the November election.

___

Copyright 2006, The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP Online news report may not be published, broadcast or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/shar...i_Clinton.html

Whoa, who'd a thunk it? Good for him

[strandinthewind]

I know. I like RG. I get that he is not perfect, but no politician is and at least he is, as much as I have ever seen in a politician, blunt to fault.

The GOP, however, will likely never embrace him because he is pro choice and likes gay people - hell he lived with a gay male couple while he was separated from his wife who lived in Gracie Mansion. He also had a mistress for years, but maried her after his divorce.

Personally, I think the vast majority of R's and D's would vote him in in a NY minute.

It is rumored, however, that he has some shady financial dealing in the past that sort of got exposed when his head of security was nominated for something in W's administration.

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know. I like RG...

It is rumored, however, that he has some shady financial dealing in the past that sort of got exposed when his head of security was nominated for something in W's administration.

Let's not forget what a GIGANTIC oppressive asshole he was BEFORE (and, in my opinion, never changed after) the lame terrorist attacks....

Jeezus, Jason- sometimes you are such a fukcing Gay Uncle Tom.

Sorry, my love, but it really gets annoying after a while.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by The Tower

Let's not forget what a GIGANTIC oppressive asshole he was BEFORE (and, in my opinion, never changed after) the lame terrorist attacks....

Jeezus, Jason- sometimes you are such a fukcing Gay Uncle Tom.

Sorry, my love, but it really gets annoying after a while.

First of all the terrorist attacks could hardly be described as "lame" - was that a typo? If not, please explain how the deaths of over 3,000 Americans, the destruction of hundreds of millions of property, the tanking of an economy, and the cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths in the Middle East is lame.

Second -

If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you would see I was speaking in comparative terms. In other words, I do not see a D candidate who has a better chance of winning than RG and RG is good on many social issues that the far religious right is oppressive on. In fact, here are some of them:

Abortion

Opposes ban on partial-birth abortion.

Gay marriage

Opposes constitutional ban. “I’m pro-gay rights.”

Gun control

Supports ban on assault weapons. As mayor, he called on New Yorkers “to re-energize the fight for gun control.”

Immigration

“We got to stop illegals from coming in,” he recently told Fox News. “And a tremendous amount of money should be put into the physical security that’s needed to do that.”

Taxes

As mayor, reduced taxes in New York by several billion dollars.

So, I get that he defended the cops in the tragic death of that guy, he refused to fund shiitte as art, and his use of police zones cut crime by like half - but comparatively I can live with those when compared to a person like Romney, Frist, or Santorum. Can you honestly say you can't either? And, it will come down to that I think, though I hope not.

As for the D's the only one I like so far is John Edwards and I do not think he can win. Hillary is an interesting choice and she could possibly win, but it would take luck in addition to her alleged $300 million war chest and please note that other than on partial birth abortion, she is hardly different than RG and he is not a kiss a$$ say anything to get elected sow like she is?

Also and to correct you because you need a little come uppence dear - RG's history on gay issues is stellar compared to most D's you support. I mean the man lived with a gay male couple, marched in gay rights parades, and dressed in drag on several occasions. So, my support of him hardly makes me a gay Uncle Tom.

Here is a cool editorial on RG - again, the man is FAR from perfect, but he is better than most, especially on gay issues Mr. Shelby.

Debunking Giuliani's bad rap

Andrew Carnabuci '06
Posted: 3/31/05

I am greatly alarmed by the general mood of seething indignation around campus regarding the announcement that Rudy Giuliani will be coming to speak for graduation, as demonstrated by an article in last week's campus and talk of an "alternate" graduation speaker, and would like to take this opportunity to respond.

I would like to preface my criticism the campus' response to Mr. Giuliani by establishing two credentials which I believe lend some weight to my thoughts. Firstly, I am a New Yorker, and secondly, I am a registered Democrat.

I am also far from the only registered Democrat in the area, as registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans five to one in New York City (MSNBC). This said, there must be something to this Rudolph Giuliani, a Republican, elected as mayor in 1993, and re-elected in 1997 by an overwhelming margin, carrying four of New York's five boroughs (www.nyc.gov) despite being in the radical political minority.

Thus far, I have heard only two substantive criticisms leveled against Mr. Giuliani, both of which are incorrect and misleading. The first is an objection to his homeless policy. Mr. Giuliani's often-criticized policy regarding the homeless is one of the most misunderstood issues in New York politics. Giuliani's policy, which many simply describe as "arresting the homeless," was actually the implementation of the suggestions from a 1990 report, written by prominent Democrat Andrew Cuomo, who was at the time working for H.E.L.P., a non-for-profit homeless advocacy group. New York City now places its homeless in clean, safe shelters where they receive job training and can work towards their G.E.D.s. The city spends 800 million dollars annually to ensure this (Foreman, Jonathan, Salon Magazine, January 4, 2000). This is a far cry from "arresting the homeless," and in fact demonstrates City Hall's compassion for its homeless

Secondly, many cite his "abysmal" record on police brutality. This too, is questionable. While many correctly and accurately allude to the two tragic cases of Abner Louima and Amadou Dialou, this is far from the whole truth. According to Amnesty International's Deputy Executive Director Gerald Lemel, in the 10 years prior to the Giuliani administration, police brutality in New York City was steadily rising at 30 to 40 percent per year. In 1995, the second year of Giuliani's administration, it rose 16 percent. In 1996, it rose 0 percent (www.saxakali.com). What this suggests, contrary to what critics seem to be asserting, is that Rudy Giuliani in fact successfully combatted police brutality in New York.

This all being said, I fail to see what, if anything, Middlebury students could hold against Rudy Giuliani. I suspect, however, that I do know the true reason why so many on this campus despise Rudy Giuliani so much, and that is this: he's a Republican. The enraged response to Mr. Giuliani amounts to nothing more than petty partisan politics as usual. It is indicative of the reactionary, knee-jerk liberalism, which, lamentably, is extremely fashionable on campus these days. That there are Middlebury students out there who cannot think independently of political dogma and find heroes - or at least respect people's accomplishments - across party lines speaks to the lack of genuine intellectualism on campus. There is a word for people who mindlessly chant the party line on every issue and lash out venomously at everything and everyone that demurs from it - that word is fascist.

I would urge all reactionary neo-liberals opposed to Mr. Giuliani's visit to spend less time finding fault with real heroes, and more time reading the Bible they have forsaken in the name of academically fashionable secular humanism, where they might find that timeless bit of wisdom, "and why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye" (Matthew, 7:3).

© Copyright 2006 The Middlebury Campus

[irishgrl]

Mary -

If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you would see I was speaking in comparative terms. In other words, I do not see a D candidate who has a better chance of winning than RG and RG is good on many social issues that the far religious right is oppressive on. In fact, here are some of them:

Abortion

Opposes ban on partial-birth abortion.

Gay marriage

Opposes constitutional ban. “I’m pro-gay rights.”

Gun control

Supports ban on assault weapons. As mayor, he called on New Yorkers “to re-energize the fight for gun control.”

Immigration

“We got to stop illegals from coming in,” he recently told Fox News. “And a tremendous amount of money should be put into the physical security that’s needed to do that.”

Taxes

As mayor, reduced taxes in New York by several billion dollars.

So, I get that he defended the cops in the tragic death of that guy, he refused to fund shiitte as art, and his use of police zones cut crime by like half - but comparatively I can live with those when compared to a person like Kerry, Frist, or Santorum. Can you honestly say you can't either? And, it will come down to that I think, though I hope not.

As for the D's the only one I like so far is John Edwards and I do not think he can win. Hillary is an interesting choice and she could possibly win, but it would take luck in addition to her alleged $300 million war chest and please note that other than on partial birth abortion, she is hardly different than RG and he is not a kiss a$$ say anything to get elected sow like she is?

Also and to correct you because you need a little come uppence dear - RG's history on gay issues is stellar compared to most D's you support. I mean the man lived with a gay male couple, marched in gay rights parades, and dressed in drag on several occasions. So, my support of him hardly makes me a gay Uncle Tom.

Here is a cool editorial on RG - again, the man is FAR from perfect, but he is better than most, especially on gay issues Mr. Shelby.

Debunking Giuliani's bad rap

Andrew Carnabuci '06
Posted: 3/31/05

I am greatly alarmed by the general mood of seething indignation around campus regarding the announcement that Rudy Giuliani will be coming to speak for graduation, as demonstrated by an article in last week's campus and talk of an "alternate" graduation speaker, and would like to take this opportunity to respond.

I would like to preface my criticism the campus' response to Mr. Giuliani by establishing two credentials which I believe lend some weight to my thoughts. Firstly, I am a New Yorker, and secondly, I am a registered Democrat.

I am also far from the only registered Democrat in the area, as registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans five to one in New York City (MSNBC). This said, there must be something to this Rudolph Giuliani, a Republican, elected as mayor in 1993, and re-elected in 1997 by an overwhelming margin, carrying four of New York's five boroughs (www.nyc.gov) despite being in the radical political minority.

Thus far, I have heard only two substantive criticisms leveled against Mr. Giuliani, both of which are incorrect and misleading. The first is an objection to his homeless policy. Mr. Giuliani's often-criticized policy regarding the homeless is one of the most misunderstood issues in New York politics. Giuliani's policy, which many simply describe as "arresting the homeless," was actually the implementation of the suggestions from a 1990 report, written by prominent Democrat Andrew Cuomo, who was at the time working for H.E.L.P., a non-for-profit homeless advocacy group. New York City now places its homeless in clean, safe shelters where they receive job training and can work towards their G.E.D.s. The city spends 800 million dollars annually to ensure this (Foreman, Jonathan, Salon Magazine, January 4, 2000). This is a far cry from "arresting the homeless," and in fact demonstrates City Hall's compassion for its homeless

Secondly, many cite his "abysmal" record on police brutality. This too, is questionable. While many correctly and accurately allude to the two tragic cases of Abner Louima and Amadou Dialou, this is far from the whole truth. According to Amnesty International's Deputy Executive Director Gerald Lemel, in the 10 years prior to the Giuliani administration, police brutality in New York City was steadily rising at 30 to 40 percent per year. In 1995, the second year of Giuliani's administration, it rose 16 percent. In 1996, it rose 0 percent (www.saxakali.com). What this suggests, contrary to what critics seem to be asserting, is that Rudy Giuliani in fact successfully combatted police brutality in New York.

This all being said, I fail to see what, if anything, Middlebury students could hold against Rudy Giuliani. I suspect, however, that I do know the true reason why so many on this campus despise Rudy Giuliani so much, and that is this: he's a Republican. The enraged response to Mr. Giuliani amounts to nothing more than petty partisan politics as usual. It is indicative of the reactionary, knee-jerk liberalism, which, lamentably, is extremely fashionable on campus these days. That there are Middlebury students out there who cannot think independently of political dogma and find heroes - or at least respect people's accomplishments - across party lines speaks to the lack of genuine intellectualism on campus. There is a word for people who mindlessly chant the party line on every issue and lash out venomously at everything and everyone that demurs from it - that word is fascist.

I would urge all reactionary neo-liberals opposed to Mr. Giuliani's visit to spend less time finding fault with real heroes, and more time reading the Bible they have forsaken in the name of academically fashionable secular humanism, where they might find that timeless bit of wisdom, "and why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye" (Matthew, 7:3).

© Copyright 2006 The Middlebury Campus

Jason, why are you directing this at me? Of COURSE I read what you posted and if you'll read what I posted you'll see I appreciated Rudy's comments I dont know much about Rudy, but Im not rabidly against him, so Im not sure why you feel the need to single me out ??? Its Towie who made the negative comments and even you yourself hinted not all is well in Rudy-land

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Jason, why are you directing this at me? Of COURSE I read what you posted and if you'll read what I posted you'll see I appreciated Rudy's comments I dont know much about Rudy, but Im not rabidly against him, so Im not sure why you feel the need to single me out ??? Its Towie who made the negative comments and even you yourself hinted not all is well in Rudy-land

He argues merely for argument's sake even if he agrees with you!