Bush Can't Get His Stories Straight

[jimntx]

MiAAMi:
I was responding to Jimntx' remark about Republican's and the OLD SOUTH and how he accused Republicans of being anti this and anti that. He needed to be reminded about Senator Byrd and his KKK past.


SO I guess it's ok for a president to lie as long as no one dies. I see your logic!

Do you remember Kennedy and Johnson and their hand in the Vietnam War. Not much different than Nixon's.

You wanna talk about lost lives, ok, let's talk!

After the terrorists tried bringing down the towers in 1993, what did Clinton do?

NOT A GODDAMN THING!
You think he would've untied the CIA and the FBI's hands to go out and get intelligence. He said after 9/11 occurred, he knew it was Bin Laden and he said he knew Bin Laden had a hand in the 1993 attack.

So let me ask you, MiAAmi, what did Clinton do?

I'll tell you what he did!
He allowed 9/11 to happen successfully!

He allowed all those lives to be lost on 9/11 becuase of his inaction.

Hey MiAAmi, do you remember the attack on the USS COLE In Yemen tha killed 17 US serviceman?

Let's me give you a brief recap of events.

Bill Clinton slashed the Defense budget! Well not only did they close military bases worldwide, they decommisioned all seagoing fueling tankers that kept all US Naval vessels afloat worldwid. Because of that, the USS COLE, like all other US Ships must get their fuel at ports rather than out at Sea.

Would you like to tack those 17 lives onto Clinton's death roster?

Let's get one thing straight! THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN HATED SINCE 1948 WHEN ISRAEL CREATED IT'S OWN STATE! WE WILL CONTINUE TO BE HATED AS LONG AS WE OFFER OUR FULL SUPPORT TO THEM! PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
\

AND MIAAMI AND JIMNTX:

YOU KNOW DAMN WELL HAD SENATOR BYRD BEEN A REPUBLICAN, THE DEMOCRATS WOULD NEVER LET US FORGET IT!

Actually, Hopeless, Sen. Byrd is an Independent. AND, maybe you should go back and learn a little history before spouting off.

Sen. Byrd represents WEST VIRGINIA which was NOT part of the Old Confederacy. In fact, West Virginia exists because the people in that part of Virginia split off rather than secede from the Union at the time of the Civil War. West Virginia fought on the Union side. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

 

[Hopeful]

Hey there Jim, scroll down to Sen. Byrd.


Gee they seem to have him listed as a Democrat!


You wouldn't be spouting misinformation, now would you, ol jimmy boy?



Akaka, Daniel - (D - HI) Class I
141 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6361
E-mail: [email protected]

Alexander, Lamar - (R - TN) Class II
302 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4944
Web Form: alexander.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Allard, Wayne - (R - CO) Class II
525 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5941
Web Form: allard.senate.gov/contactme

Allen, George - (R - VA) Class I
204 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4024
Web Form: allen.senate.gov/email.html

Baucus, Max - (D - MT) Class II
511 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2651
Web Form: baucus.senate.gov/emailmax.html

Bayh, Evan - (D - IN) Class III
463 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5623
Web Form: bayh.senate.gov/WebMail1.htm

Bennett, Robert - (R - UT) Class III
431 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5444
Web Form: bennett.senate.gov/e-mail_form.html

Biden, Joseph - (D - DE) Class II
201 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5042
E-mail: [email protected]

Bingaman, Jeff - (D - NM) Class I
703 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5521
E-mail: [email protected]

Bond, Christopher - (R - MO) Class III
274 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5721
Web Form: bond.senate.gov/contact/contactme.cfm

Boxer, Barbara - (D - CA) Class III
112 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3553
Web Form: boxer.senate.gov/contact

Breaux, John - (D - LA) Class III
503 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4623
E-mail: [email protected]

Brownback, Sam - (R - KS) Class III
303 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6521
Web Form: brownback.senate.gov/CMEmailMe.htm

Bunning, Jim - (R - KY) Class III
316 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4343
Web Form: bunning.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Email

Burns, Conrad - (R - MT) Class I
187 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2644
Web Form: burns.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Contact

Byrd, Robert - (D - WV) Class I
311 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3954
Web Form: byrd.senate.gov/byrd_email.html

Campbell, Ben - (R - CO) Class III
380 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5852

 

[Hopeful]

COUNCIL OF TRENT
Byrd silent over
Lott comments
West Virginia senator is former KKK member

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 18, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Jon Dougherty
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

West Virginia Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd, whose past includes a stint as a Ku Klux Klan member, has remained silent over claims that presumed incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott used racially tinged language at a birthday celebration for a retiring colleague.

Critics have attempted to draw connections between the two men, but so far Byrd has refused to address Lott's comments, the Charleston Daily Mail reported yesterday.

Lott made his comments at the 100th birthday celebration for retiring Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., Dec. 5. Thurmond ran for president on the breakaway Dixiecrat ticket on a segregationist platform in 1948.

Lott pointed out that his home state of Mississippi voted for Thurmond, adding: "If the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."

Blacks and whites alike have criticized those comments as racist in nature, though Lott – who has apologized at least three times for them – said he was referring to Thurmond's ability to lead and has never supported his segregationist views.

Thurmond, over the years, also moderated his views, becoming one of the first lawmakers to hire black staffers and to support – eventually – the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

But Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said successful calls for the Senate to censure Lott would be met with calls to do the same to Byrd for comments he made nearly two years ago on a television news program.

During a taped interview in March 2001, Byrd said, "My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that. There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I'm going to use that word."

Byrd's office eventually issued an apology, read over the air on Fox News Channel, but his use of a racially charged word has not equaled the criticism of Lott's statement – a phenomenon some conservatives have attempted to point out.

"Unlike Lott, Byrd used overtly racist language, but got away with it," syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote Monday.

"Some of the people making the biggest accusations have a lot to answer for themselves," said Colorado Republican Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, the only minority GOP member in the Senate.

"The Democrats are awful quiet about Sen. Byrd's past," he said. "At a certain point, he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, but they're very quiet about that."

Byrd also has apologized for his KKK involvement.

"Being involved with the KKK was the most egregious mistake I have ever made," he told the Daily Mail in 1999.

National polls indicate that most Americans want Lott to resign his leadership role. ABC News reports that "a bare majority" of 51 percent want Lott to step down as Republican leader.

In a separate survey conducted by pollster Scott Rasmussen, just 20 percent of Americans think Lott should remain Senate leader, while 47 percent think GOP senators should select a new leader.

One Republican, Sen. Don Nickles of Oklahoma, has already called for elections to oust Lott.

Also, the New York Times reported yesterday that Republicans with close ties to the Bush administration say Lott had "no chance" of remaining majority leader and that the White House wanted him out.

Related story:

Clinton-scandal aide to replace Sen. Lott?




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jon E. Dougherty is a staff reporter and columnist for WorldNetDaily.

E-mail to a Friend Printer-friendly version



NEWS:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

French 9-11 video game riles victims' relatives

'Gays' admitting AIDS culpability

Muslims demand apology from Paul Harvey

Google 'miserable failure': It's Bush

Woman wins chance to date Kucinich

Kerry uses F-word in anti-Bush tirade

Teacher takes 'Christmas' out of carol

Judge: 'Gay'-diversity week violated rights of Christian

Officials boot 'God' from patriotic song

House of Saud in 'panic' over al-Qaida

COMMENTARY:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 'offensiveness' of Jesus
By David Limbaugh

U.N.: Yellowstone no longer 'in danger'
By Henry Lamb

Democrats get religion
By David Bass

 

[Hopeful]

Thursday, Nov. 20, 2003 5:02 p.m. EST
Hillary Gives 'KKK' Byrd Freedom Award

In a little-noticed ceremony before she flew off to attend Iowa's Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner Saturday night, Sen. Hillary Clinton presented ex-Klansman-turned-Senator Robert Byrd with the Franklin Roosevelt Institute's Four Freedoms Award.

Addressing the crowd in Hyde Park, N.Y., Mrs. Clinton praised Byrd as a mentor, saying he provided a wonderful example for her.

"When I think of the Senate, I think of Robert Byrd," the former first lady said, according to an account in the Hyde Park Townsman.

It was during Roosevelt's third presidential term that Byrd joined the Klan, saying he wanted to fight communism. And though he left within a year, he continued to advise Klan leaders on how to expand the influence of the anti-black terror group.

In 1971, Byrd co-sponsored a measure to have the Senate's main office building named after Sen. Richard Russell, an unabashed white supremacist who led the fight against anti-lynching legislation in the Senate.

"He was kind of my mentor," Byrd said recently, noting that Sen. Russell was known as an expert on Senate rules, much like himself.

In 2001 Byrd was forced to apologize after he blurted out the "N"-word twice during a nationally televised interview.

Editor's note:
Hillary has a bold plan to capture the White House – Click Here Now

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
DNC
Sen. Hillary Clinton

 

[Hopeful]

Monday, Oct. 27, 2003 2:24 p.m. EST
9/11 Commission Mum on Clinton Documents

Tom Kean, chairman of the Independent Commission investigating the 9/11 attacks, complained over the weekend that the White House has yet to comply with all of its document requests - news that has both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill complaining about Bush administration stonewalling.

But neither Kean nor anyone else on the 10-member commission will say whether pertinent documents from the Clinton administration have been turned over - or, for that matter, whether they've even been sought.

Records of Clinton White House deliberations leading up to at least three presidential decisions to terminate missions to kill or capture bin Laden should be a top priority for 9/11 probers, since the failure to act arguably cost 3,000 American lives.

But so far, anyway, if Kean's commissioners are interested in examining the thinking behind those ill-fated decisions, they have yet to say so out loud.

In February 2002, for instance, Mr. Clinton himself admitted that he pulled the plug on at least two plans to take out the 9/11 mastermind in 1999 and 2000. In the same speech, he confessed that he had turned down a 1996 offer from Sudan to take bin Laden into custody.

9/11 Commission spokesman Al Felzenberg didn't respond by press time to a phone call and an e-mail inquiring about the Commission's apparent lack of interest in Mr. Clinton's stunning confession.

Still, the ex-president's comments 21 months ago represent his most extensive account to date of why his administration failed to neutralize bin Laden.

For the first and only time since the 9/11 attacks, Clinton explained why he turned down a plan to send attack helicopters into Afghanistan on an assassination mission, as well as a later operation designed to attack bin Laden's Khandahar compound with cruise missiles.

The ex-president said he decided to scuttle the first plan because it risked "illegally violating the airspace of people if they wouldn't give us approval."

And he said he pulled the plug on the second operation because "I knew the attack would kill 200 women and children [and] had less than a 50 percent chance of getting him."

He also confirmed that he turned down an offer by Sudan to extradite the terror mastermind to the U.S. "because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

Clearly regretting his decision not to launch what would have been his second cruise missile attack to kill bin Laden, the ex-president told his audience, "Now, after [bin Laden] murdered 3,100 of our people and others who came to our country seeking their livelihood you may say, 'Well, Mr. President, you should have killed those 200 women and children.'

But he explained, "At the time we didn't think he had the capacity to do that. And no one thought that I should do that - although I take full responsibility for it. ... And there was less than a 50-50 chance that the intelligence was right that on this particular night he was in Afghanistan."

Subsequent reports, however, indicate that U.S. intelligence was much more confident of bin Laden's whereabouts than Mr. Clinton suggested last year.

For the benefit of the 9/11 Commission, and anyone else who may be interested in learning why the Clinton adminsitration failed to neutralize bin Laden, here's a full transcript of Mr. Clinton's remarks on the subject - recorded and transcribed exclusively by NewsMax.com.

The Long Island Association Annual Luncheon Feb. 15, 2002

Question from LIA President Matthew Crosson:

CROSSON: In hindsight, would you have handled the issue of terrorism, and al-Qaeda specifically, in a different way during your administration?

CLINTON: Well, it's interesting now, you know, that I would be asked that question because, at the time, a lot of people thought I was too obsessed with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

And when I bombed his training camp and tried to kill him and his high command in 1998 after the African embassy bombings, some people criticized me for doing it. We just barely missed him by a couple of hours.

I think whoever told us he was going to be there told somebody who told him that our missiles might be there. I think we were ratted out.

We also bombed a chemical facility in Sudan where we were criticized, even in this country, for overreaching. But in the trial in New York City of the al-Qaeda people who bombed the African embassy, they testified in the trial that the Sudanese facility was, in fact, a part of their attempt to stockpile chemical weapons.

So we tried to be quite aggressive with them. We got - uh - well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.

And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

We then put a lot of sanctions on the Afghan government and - but they inter-married, Mullah Omar and bin Laden. So that essentially the Taliban didn't care what we did to them.

Now, if you look back - in the hindsight of history, everybody's got 20/20 vision - the real issue is should we have attacked the al-Qaeda network in 1999 or in 2000 in Afghanistan.

Here's the problem. Before September 11 we would have had no support for it - no allied support and no basing rights. Though we actually trained to do this. I actually trained people to do this. We trained people.

But in order to do it, we would have had to take them in on attack helicopters 900 miles from the nearest boat - maybe illegally violating the airspace of people if they wouldn't give us approval. And we would have had to do a refueling stop.

And we would have had to make the decision in advance that's the reverse of what President Bush made - and I agreed with what he did. They basically decided - this may be frustrating to you now that we don't have bin Laden. But the president had to decide after Sept. 11, which am I going to do first? Just go after bin Laden or get rid of the Taliban?

He decided to get rid of the Taliban. I personally agree with that decision, even though it may or may not have delayed the capture of bin Laden. Why?

Because, first of all the Taliban was the most reactionary government on earth and there was an inherent value in getting rid of them.

Secondly, they supported terrorism and we'd send a good signal to governments that if you support terrorism and they attack us in America, we will hold you responsible.

Thirdly, it enabled our soldiers and Marines and others to operate more safely in-country as they look for bin Laden and the other senior leadership, because if we'd have had to have gone in there to just sort of clean out one area, try to establish a base camp and operate.

So for all those reasons the military recommended against it. There was a high probability that it wouldn't succeed.

Now I had one other option. I could have bombed or sent more missiles in. As far as we knew he never went back to his training camp. So the only place bin Laden ever went that we knew was occasionally he went to Khandahar where he always spent the night in a compound that had 200 women and children.

So I could have, on any given night, ordered an attack that I knew would kill 200 women and children that had less than a 50 percent chance of getting him.

Now, after he murdered 3,100 of our people and others who came to our country seeking their livelihood you may say, "Well, Mr. President, you should have killed those 200 women and children."

But at the time we didn't think he had the capacity to do that. And no one thought that I should do that. Although I take full responsibility for it. You need to know that those are the two options I had. And there was less than a 50/50 chance that the intelligence was right that on this particular night he was in Afghanistan.

Now, we did do a lot of things. We tried to get the Pakistanis to go get him. They could have done it and they wouldn't. They changed governments at the time from Mr. Sharif to President Musharraf. And we tried to get others to do it. We had a standing contract between the CIA and some groups in Afghanistan authorizing them and paying them if they should be successful in arresting and/or killing him.

So I tried hard to - I always thought this guy was a big problem. And apparently the options I had were the options that the President and Vice President Cheney and Secretary Powell and all the people that were involved in the Gulf War thought that they had, too, during the first eight months that they were there - until Sept. 11 changed everything.

But I did the best I could with it and I do not believe, based on what options were available to me, that I could have done much more than I did. Obviously, I wish I'd been successful. I tried a lot of different ways to get bin Laden 'cause I always thought he was a very dangerous man. He's smart, he's bold and committed.

But I think it's very important that the Bush administration do what they're doing to keep the soldiers over there to keep chasing him. But I know - like I said - I know it might be frustrating to you. But it's still better for bin Laden to worry every day more about whether he's going to see the sun come up in the morning than whether he's going to drop a bomb, another bomb somewhere in the U.S. or in Europe or on some other innocent civilians. (END OF TRANSCRIPT)


Editor's note:
"CATASTROPHE" Reveals Bill Clinton’s Role in 9/11 - Click Here to find out more

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Clinton Scandals
War on Terrorism





Printer Friendly Version

 

[Hopeful]

WHAT DOES HE HAVE TO HIDE?


Dean is asked to release gubernatorial records
Documents sealed under 10-year deal
By Sarah Schweitzer, Globe Staff, 10/2/2003

A conservative, Washington-based group formally requested yesterday that Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean release papers he had accumulated as governor of Vermont, nearly half of which have been under seal since he left office in January.

ADVERTISEMENT

Dean, who served as governor for 11 years, negotiated an unprecedented 10-year seal on correspondence from his administration, saying at the time that he didn't want the documents made public because he feared embarrassing revelations in future endeavors.

In a letter to Dean, Thomas Fitton -- president of Judicial Watch, the group pushing for the document disclosure -- wrote, "Failure on your part to provide full disclosure of your records as governor raises disturbing questions concerning accountability and transparency."

Judicial Watch is exploring legal action, Fitton said in an interview. The group brought a legal challenge seeking the release of records detailing the activities of Vice President Cheney's energy policy task force. The public request for unsealing the documents was made as Dean attempts to craft an image as the plain-spoken candidate in the field of 10 Democrats.

In a written statement, the Dean campaign said: "The vast majority of his records have been made public, including all official correspondence, proclamations, declarations, pardons, extraditions, and appointments. Those documents currently under seal will remain under seal until January 2013 as per the agreement with the secretary of state."

It is not entirely clear which records Dean has sealed; he has not outlined their contents to the state. A review of documents that he did make available suggests that internal State House documents -- particularly those from him to his staff and vice versa -- have been withheld from public view.

Shortly before he left office in January, Dean told Vermont Public Radio: "Well, there are future political considerations. We didn't want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor."

In an interview with the Globe in July, he said in response to a request that he waive the seal: "No, it's sealed for a reason. Every governor seals their papers, and it's protective of a lot of people who have something to do with the governor's office."

Dean has come under fire before for not releasing records. When he was traveling the country in exploration of a presidential bid, three Vermont newspapers sued him for access to his schedule. Dean argued that the schedule was not a matter of public record because it involved matters unrelated to his duties as governor.

"Dean was trying to conceal from the public who he was meeting with and why he was meeting with them," said Robert Hemley, a lawyer who represented the newspapers: the Rutland Herald, Times Argus, and Seven Days.

In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled against Dean, saying the portions of the schedule concerning a potential presidential candidacy were subject to disclosure.

In sealing his papers, Dean invoked the doctrine of executive privilege, which the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in 1990 extended to governor's papers.

Theoretically, a governor could indefinitely seal his or her papers under the ruling, said Gregory Sanford, Vermont's archivist. In practice, governors have sought six-year seals. Madeleine Kunin, a Democrat, requested a six-year seal on nearly half her papers. The sealing period starts at the time of her departure from office in 1991. The papers of Richard Snelling, a Republican who died in office in 1991, were also sealed for six years.

Representatives of Kunin and Snelling initially requested 20- to 30-year seals, as did Dean. Dean agreed to 10 years in the course of negotiations, Sanford said.

A request by the Globe for the correspondence between Sanford and Dean's legal counsel relating to the sealing has been referred to the state attorney general's office, which is reviewing the matter and is expected to issue a decision next week.

Rules on access to gubernatorial papers are a patchwork across the country. Last year, Charles Shultz, a professor at Texas A & M University, found that of 42 state respondents, 29 states required their governors to place records in the archives, but that only 20 always did so.

Controversy arose over President Bush's decision to place the papers from his period as governor of Texas at his father's presidential library at Texas A & M, out of the reach of state archivists. Under Texas law, the governor's papers are public records. Open-government groups cried foul, and the attorney general ruled that the documents had to be turned over the state archives, where they are now being prepared for research and later will be shipped back to the Bush library, said Tonya Wood, an archivist.

In Massachusetts, the status of governors' papers is an open debate. Alan Cote, supervisor of records for the state, said: "Governor's records are not theirs. If they are not destroyed, they are turned over to the next governor or to the archives."

But he said there have been recurring discussions about which documents are considered public and which are not. "There is wide-ranging disagreement," he said.

© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.
PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION E-MAIL TO A FRIEND

 

[jimntx]

I guess that the next post by Hopeless will be that all Democrats eat boogers.

 

[Hopeful]

Jimntx:

And they shouldn't throw thow those boogers when they live in glass houses!

 

[MiAAmi]

Hopeful,

All these conspiracy theory articles are lovely! You and Rush Limbaugh should hook up together and come up with some more. And Hopeful I find your arguements "hopeless". Good luck to you and have a safe and happy holiday. I'm going to stand down on this issue with you.

 

[jimntx]

Hopeful,

All these conspiracy theory articles are lovely! You and Rush Limbaugh should hook up together and come up with some more. And Hopeful I find your arguements "hopeless". Good luck to you and have a safe and happy holiday. I'm going to stand down on this issue with you.

Yeah, and maybe Rush will share the Paxil that his doctor "prescribed" for him to help him get off the Oxycontin. The anti-anxiety properties will do you a world of good, Hopeless.

Hopeless, I'll let you get the last shot. Feel free to say whatever you want. I don't intend to visit this topic again.

 

[JI Guy]

Folks, I am late to this thread, but the differential in the popular vote between Gore and Bush was 500,000 not 60,000 as someone erroneously posted before. I just wanted to comment on the first post which started this: basically, it was another attempt by this spin-crazy administration to make a good story even better. I remember thinking when I first heard the story (but not the revisions) that CNN or whoever is going to track the pilot down and interview him/her. WTF!?! These folks in the White House just think we are going to swallow their PR crap without wondering whats in it! I want to know: what President, Democrat, Republican or Independent, would have responded any different than Bush on 9-11. I get a chuckle out of these dittoheads who with wide eyed passion actually believe that GWB was the only one capable of responding in that fashion. Clinton, Gore, Carter, Ford, Nixon, WHOEVER, would have done the exact same response. How could they not?

 

[Fly]

You are correct JI Guy except that he (or she) would have concentrated on Bin Laden, not on a PERSONAL vendetta in Iraq.

 

[Hopeful]

jimntx:

Thanks for the last word. But since we're on conspiracy theories. Did you hear what former Secretary of State Madeline Albright had to say two days ago. She's insinuating that the Bush Administration already has Osama Bin Laden and will produce him right before the election. Now, I ask you, jim, you ol liberal democrats play the same game and should practice what you preach.

Happy liberal holidays. Don't forget to have all Nativity scenes removed from public places!

 

[JI Guy]

Hopeful, Im laughing my ass of cause if people remember Ronald Reagan in 1980 was constantly forewarning people that Jimmy Carter was going to pull an "October surprise" by getting the hostages released from Iran. Knowing Ms. Albright I truly doubt she said anything of the sort.

 

[Hopeful]

It's not my rumor........she did say it!...In jest or not, I don't know!

Albright: Bin Laden Comments Were 'Tongue-in-Cheek'

Wednesday, December 17, 2003

WASHINGTON — Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (search) insisted Wednesday that she was just kidding when she wondered aloud whether the Bush administration is holding Usama bin Laden (search) captive, waiting to break him out at the best political moment.



It was a "tongue-in-cheek comment and was not intended in any other way," Albright told Fox News.

But witnesses to Albright's comment said the ambassador did not appear to be joking Tuesday when she suggested President Bush may reveal bin Laden's capture as an "October surprise" (search) before next November's presidential election.

Albright was in the Fox News studio's green room waiting to appear on an evening program when she made the remark.

"She said, 'Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Usama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?'" said Fox News analyst and Roll Call executive editor Mort Kondracke. "She was not smiling."

Two makeup artists who prep the guests before their appearances also reported that Albright did not ask her question in a joking manner.

Democrats have long attacked Bush for his conduct in the war on terror, but conspiracy theories are gaining in frequency. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a presidential candidate, has several times suggested that Bush was told in advance of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks by Saudi Arabia.

After Saddam's capture last weekend, Washington Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott (search) made the charge that Bush staged it to win points at home.

Colleague Rep. Norman Dicks, D-Wash., scolded McDermott for the comment, and the White House said it would not address such charges.

"I don't think I have to dignify every ridiculous comment that's made out there," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist predicted political fallout would follow Saddam's capture. Frist, R-Tenn., said some Democrats would readjust and adopt new strategies, even to the point of diminishing the significance of Saddam's capture.

Political strategists have added that conspiracy theories do nothing to help the political debate, and warned Democrats to be careful in their allegations.

"Maybe [McDermott] is trying to be coproducer with Oliver Stone (search) of his next conspiracy movie," said James Lake, a former adviser to President Reagan. "It certainly fits into that category and I think -- to go a step further -- I think former Secretary of State Madeline Albright is walking on very thin ice here to suggest that the president already has Usama bin Laden captured."

"I think it is probably not a good thing to do this," said Elaine Kamarck, former senior campaign adviser to Al Gore. "I remember years ago when we made one attempt to kill Usama bin Laden by sending that missile into Sudan, all the Republicans said, 'Oh this was Bill Clinton's way of diverting attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.' That was unfair at that time, and frankly, I think accusations that somehow we have Usama and President Bush is holding him for political purposes, I think that's unfair at this time."

As for bin Laden's whereabouts, Turkish intelligence officials told the Associated Press that bin Laden recently proposed attacking a military base used by U.S. troops in Turkey, but tight security around the facility forced the terrorists to go after softer targets instead.

Terrorists then bombed two synagogues, the British consulate office and a British-owned bank in Istanbul. In those attacks, Muslims were killed, angering the Al Qaeda (search) leaders, according to the Turkish officials.

Bush said in a television interview Tuesday night that the Al Qaeda leader is still on the run, but vowed again that the United States will capture him.

Fox News' Brit Hume and Kelly Wright contributed to this report.