Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NY times published obvious Clinton Aide lie today

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NY times published obvious Clinton Aide lie today

    3/20/04 "Clinton aides to tell panel...."

    "Until 9/11, counter terrorism was a very secondary issue at the Bush White House," said a senior Clinton official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Remember those first months? The White House was focused on tax cuts, not terrorism. We saw the budgets for counter terrorism programs being cut."

    A deliberate and clumsy lie. Journalistic foul of two counts. An "Unnamed source who refused to go on the record" Innuendo and rumor not fact. Should never have been put into a "news" story as a "Fact"

    2nd problem. An obvious lie. Remember, the Federal Budget runs from Oct 1st 2000 to Sept 30th 2001. We were STILL operating under the LAST Clinton budget from the minute the Bush Administration took office until the 9-11 attacks. There were NO cuts to the "counter terrorism budget" UNLESS THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION MADE THEM"!

    In the post Watergate era the Congress made it illegal for the Executive to withhold funds appropriated by Congress from the purpose it was appropriated. Up to President Nixon, a process called "impounding" had been frequently used to block appropriations Congress made that a President opposed but did not veto. The Bush Administration, EVEN IF IT WANTED TO could not of "Cut the counter terrorism budget" prior to the 2002 Budget which would of taken effect on oct 1st 2001 AFTER the 9-11 atrocity!

  • #2
    Re: NY times published obvious Clinton Aide lie today

    Originally posted by JohnKnight77
    3/20/04 "Clinton aides to tell panel...."

    "Until 9/11, counter terrorism was a very secondary issue at the Bush White House," said a senior Clinton official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Remember those first months? The White House was focused on tax cuts, not terrorism. We saw the budgets for counter terrorism programs being cut."

    A deliberate and clumsy lie. Journalistic foul of two counts. An "Unnamed source who refused to go on the record" Innuendo and rumor not fact. Should never have been put into a "news" story as a "Fact"

    2nd problem. An obvious lie. Remember, the Federal Budget runs from Oct 1st 2000 to Sept 30th 2001. We were STILL operating under the LAST Clinton budget from the minute the Bush Administration took office until the 9-11 attacks. There were NO cuts to the "counter terrorism budget" UNLESS THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION MADE THEM"!

    In the post Watergate era the Congress made it illegal for the Executive to withhold funds appropriated by Congress from the purpose it was appropriated. Up to President Nixon, a process called "impounding" had been frequently used to block appropriations Congress made that a President opposed but did not veto. The Bush Administration, EVEN IF IT WANTED TO could not of "Cut the counter terrorism budget" prior to the 2002 Budget which would of taken effect on oct 1st 2001 AFTER the 9-11 atrocity!
    This is par for the course in the Clinton circus. Ever notice how whenever there was a "bimbo eruption", as the Clintonistas liked to call their boss' missteps and misdeeds, they came up with some other item to try to deflect attention from the sexual predator-in- chief? They gave new meaning to the term "spin doctors". No bother with all those messy facts, embarassing situations, skeletons in the closet, just come out and say "Well, I think we need to concentrate on Malaysia, do you know that they only allow their students 23 minutes for lunch? This is a human rights emergency!" The brave, gallant and compassionate head honcho then dispatches the State Department, FBI and a special hit squad from the NEA to rescue the poor persecuted students of Malaysia. Meanwhile, everybody forgets about the 6 Hustler centerfolds that he was found with in the Oval Office, the latest real estate scam, his use of Air Force One to fly him to a birthday bash for his buddy Fidel, and his wifes rampage through Wal-Mart after they didn't list her book as the "Number One Best-Seller ever - Even better than the Bible"

    Just one more day in hog heaven.
    Mens Est Clavis Victoriae
    (The Mind Is The Key To Victory)

    Comment


    • #3
      Face it both Clinton and Bush have serious issues with lying. As Do all politicians. I just cant get excited about who our CiC is doing in the Oval Office. That being personal and between him, his wife, and all the women that he did. Notice that the republicans set out on almost a crusade to get him impeached for lying about where he was dipping his stick and for a real estate deal that by all accounts might have stunk but everyone said (Dems mostly and his family but also others) he didn't have any knowledge of how it was going to work. Yet we have no talk of impeaching Bush for getting us into a war in Iraq that was very obviously a side show and not taking on AQ and destroying it utterly before going to other things. I just want to ask why has it taken us so long to really mount operations in Afganistan to find AQ leaders and take them out? I guess thats my major problem. Why did we open put more on our plate with out finishing what was there first? WMD? Can't be that. At least thatw what they are telling us now. We found Information on how to make WMD's? I think that they have libraries and Universities in Iraq. I can get info on how to make nukes, bio and chem weapons and all using house hold materials for the last two. I just wonder why we have such vehement Conservatives who will attack anything Democrat or Liberal. I am trying to look at both sides. Clinton was admittedly not a nice guy but Bush is right along side him.

      Comment


      • #4
        Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998. PERIOD!

        WMD as the 'sole' sales pitch for the invasion of Iraq is a result of the global medias selective focus upon them. It was never the sole, or even primary reason. It was one of a few.

        Nothing new there!

        S CON RES 71 is an interesting study in regard to this subject as well.
        On the Plains of Hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest-and resting... died. Adlai E. Stevenson

        ACG History Today

        BoRG

        Comment


        • #5
          Bush - Clinton

          I would submit that Bush has not the moral bankruptcy; and lack of scruples honor, dignity, integrity and decency so proudly displayed by Clinton on a daily basis.

          I do not pick on someone solely based on their socio-political views. Hoever, when someone adopts an inherently flawed philosophy/social system such as socialism. I cannot scarcely help but point out the flaws in their reasoning.

          Socialism is a fundamentally and functionaly flawed philosophy/dogma. Its insistence on central control, planned economic activity, burgeoning federal entitlement programs, has been proven time and again to be a poison pill for economic health and growth. Also, with socialist regime tends to come tends to come a pervavsive state control of most, if not all, of a citizen's daily life. While the various European nations (and a handful of others), have not slipped into autocracy owing to socialist leaning, or outright socialism, the wrestle daily with a balancing act of socialism and state control on the one hand, and free market, representative democracy and, and free exchange of ideas.

          Berating Clinton, or others of his ilk, is not partisan, not petty, not unfair. It is exposing him and his reactionary dogma to the light of day, exposing it to the view of the American people, and the world at large Herein a partial list of his misdeed:

          1) Accessory to (murder, maslaughter, etc.): Vince Foster, Ron Brown (?);

          2) Gross sexual miscounduct (Lewinsky, Flowers, etc.);

          3) Fraud (Whitewater, et al);

          4) Draft Dodging;

          5) Sedition ("peace activism, riding "Peace Train to Moscow);

          6) Possible illicit drug use in White House;

          7) Perjury, contempt of court;

          8) Espionage (China, poss others);

          9) Illegal fundraising;

          10) Dereliction of duty (deferring consideration of various national and world crises so that he could, sleep, finish his round of gold, finsih various Oval Offcie "duties", et al

          SO, this is why Clinton is a clay pigeon, when it comes to debate about him in omparison to any president
          Mens Est Clavis Victoriae
          (The Mind Is The Key To Victory)

          Comment


          • #6
            www.securityfocus.com/columnists/143

            Richard Clarke's Legacy of Miscalculation

            By George Smith Feb 17 2003 01:38AM PT

            The retirement of Richard Clarke is appropriate to the reality of the war on terror. Years ago, Clarke bet his national security career on the idea that electronic war was going to be real war. He lost, because as al Qaeda and Iraq have shown, real action is still of the blood and guts kind.

            In happier times prior to 9/11, Clarke -- as Bill Clinton's counter-terror point man in the National Security Council -- devoted great effort to convincing national movers and shakers that cyberattack was the coming thing. While ostensibly involved in preparations for bioterrorism and trying to sound alarms about Osama bin Laden, Clarke was most often seen in the news predicting ways in which electronic attacks were going to change everything and rewrite the calculus of conflict.

            September 11 spoiled the fun, though, and electronic attack was shoved onto the back-burner in favor of special operations men calling in B-52 precision air strikes on Taliban losers. One-hundred fifty-thousand U.S. soldiers on station outside Iraq make it perfectly clear that cyberspace is only a trivial distraction.

            Saddam will not be brought down by people stealing his e-mail or his generals being spammed with exhortations to surrender.

            Clarke's career in subsequent presidential administrations was a barometer of the recession of the belief that cyberspace would be a front effector in national security affairs. After being part of the NSC, Clarke was dismissed to Special Advisor for Cyberspace Security on October 9th in a ceremony led by National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice and new homeland security guru Tom Ridge. If it was an advance, it was one to the rear -- a pure demotion.

            Instead of combating terrorists, Clarke would be left to wrestle with corporate America over computer security, a match he would lose by pinfall. Ridding the world of bad guys and ensuring homeland safety was a job for CIA wet affairsmen, the FBI, the heavy bomb wing out of Whiteman Air Force Base -- anyone but marshals in cyberspace.

            Information "Sharing" and Cruise Missiles
            The Slammer virus gave Clarke one last mild hurrah with the media. But nationally, Slammer was a minor inconvenience compared to relentless cold weather in the east and the call up of the reserves.

            But with his retirement, Clarke's career accomplishments should be noted.

            In 1986, as a State Department bureaucrat with pull, he came up with a plan to battle terrorism and subvert Muammar Qaddafi by having SR-71s produce sonic booms over Libya. This was to be accompanied by rafts washing onto the sands of Tripoli, the aim of which was to create the illusion of a coming attack. When this nonsense was revealed, it created embarrassment for the Reagan administration and was buried.

            In 1998, according to the New Republic, Clarke "played a key role in the Clinton administration's misguided retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which targeted bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan." The pharmaceutical factory was, apparently, just a pharmaceutical factory, and we now know how impressed bin Laden was by cruise missiles that miss.

            Trying his hand in cyberspace, Clarke's most lasting contribution is probably the new corporate exemption in the Freedom of Information Act. Originally designed to immunize companies against the theoretical malicious use of FOIA by competitors, journalists and other so-called miscreants interested in ferreting out cyber-vulnerabilities, it was suggested well before the war on terror as a measure that would increase corporate cooperation with Uncle Sam. Clarke labored and lobbied diligently from the NSC for this amendment to existing law, law which he frequently referred to as an "impediment" to information sharing.

            While the exemption would inexplicably not pass during the Clinton administration, Clarke and other like-minded souls kept pushing for it. Finally, the national nervous breakdown that resulted from the collapse of the World Trade Center reframed the exemption as a grand idea, and it was embraced by legislators, who even expanded it to give a get-out-of-FOIA-free card to all of corporate America, not just those involved with the cyber-infrastructure. It passed into law as part of the legislation forming the Department of Homeland Security.

            However, as with many allegedly bright ideas originally pushed by Richard Clarke, it came with thorns no one had anticipated.

            In a January 17 confirmation hearing for Clarke's boss, Tom Ridge, Senator Carl Levin protested that the exemption's language needed to be clarified. "We are denying the public unclassified information in the current law which should not be denied to the public," he said as reported in the Federation of American Scientists' Secrecy News.

            "That means that you could get information that, for instance, a company is leaking material into a river that you could not turn over to the EPA," Levin continued. "If that company was the source of the information, you could not even turn it over to another agency."

            "It certainly wasn't the intent, I'm sure, of those who advocated the Freedom of Information Act exemption to give wrongdoers protection or to protect illegal activity," replied Ridge while adding he would work to remedy the problem.

            Thanks for everything, Mr. Clarke.

            George Smith is a Senior Fellow at GlobalSecurity.org, a defense affairs think tank and public information group. He also edits the Crypt Newsletter and has written extensively on viruses, the genesis of techno-legends and the impact of both on society.

            Comment


            • #7
              Is it a wonder that professional liars... err... lawyers and business executives... turn into professional politicians? I think not, they've had years of practice working their way through bigger and more demanding markes... err... crowds of people.

              Name ONE honest POTUS? There aren't any... it's a prerequisite for the job that you have skeletons in the closet (or recently packed away) just to get (and keep) the job. OK some ran on a platform of lies from day one and some started on day two. Impeachment is the only irrefutable proof of how 'bad' a President was, and that's happened how often? Not because of the 'goodness' of the Chief, but because of the inherent 'badness' of those around them.
              If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.

              Comment

              Latest Topics

              Collapse

              Working...
              X