« So Which One's Fatal? | Main | Quiet »


Henry Schlatman

Well RocketPunch,
Lets hold off on the "I told you so" for now. No matter which "Idiot" is put in charge of America, we need to hold "Our Federal Elected Officals Feet to the Fire." Just like every other administration before him, Bush has left a wave of investigations. Not only that, it is time for Our Society to have the same Talk we had in the 70's and as a Society decide on what we want to do with the future of Our Country because Our Corporations and Government hasn't a freaking clue.

Rep from WA State

RocketPunch, your blaspheme is well noted.

You liberal Clinton apologists need to find another place to light because there is absolutely nothing that you say that will turn any of us who trust Bush to protect us from him. We lived through the Clinton years and continue to be thankful those days are over.

Clintons are hypocrites of the highest order. Kerry is their same mold. I will never forget the seeing the faces of Bill and Hillary when Mother Teresa scolded the US on their allowance of baby killing through abortion. She said, "If you don't love the children enough to let them live, send them to me. I will love them." Good ole Hill and Bill looked like a huge fist just hit them in the face.

Dems are driving good sensible people with morals away from their party. I can't imagine their frustration.

Henry Schlatman

Rep from WA State,
I have a question for you that i would like you to answer. How well do you remember the years between 1969-1973?

I was about 10 years old and remember a nation that was almost under police control.


Anyone ever read "Dereliction of Duty" by Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson, who carried the nuclear football for President Clinton? He describes in detail a couple of occasions in which we had OBL in our sites - both occasions were only a couple of hours. Sandy Berger TRIED DESPERATELY to get a return call from (then) President Clinton to approve the action to take him out. The time elapsed, OBL "went away" and Clinton never returned Berger's calls in time. Clinton was on the golf course with friends one of those times when Patterson fervently explained to him the necessity of an immediate return call to Berger. Clinton brushed it off. So much for that. Quite an expensive brush-off with thousands of innocent US citizens (whose government, nor them, had done nothing to deserve such an attack) paying the ultimate price.

wasted potential

Rocket - I did read the disclaimer about your "Jesus is a liberal" comment, but I would like for you to expound a little bit on that idea. What about the term liberal, as we define it today politically, do you think Jesus fits into?

Frankly, as a personal follower of Christ, I could not disagree with you more. The current stance on social issues that liberals embrace in our country are contrary to his teachings.

I agree with Rep from WA - my church of 500 people will nearly all vote for Bush here in Ohio, not because the pastor told us to. Actually, we do not have any political discussion in our church at all. The reason is that we understand the teachings on life in the Bible and oppose those who would approve, fund and expand the killing of innocent unborn babies.

Anyway, just wanted to get a clarification.


Lin - Those charges were debunked by the 9/11 commission report.

You know what ... it's been 4 years since Clinton left office. I don't really know why you guys have such a hatred for the man. All those millions and a 10 year long campaign to knock the man down and the only thing you could prove is he received oral. It is so tiresome. I'll take oral over mushroom clouds anyday of the week. Those of you who believe Clinton was so bad for this country are the minority. If he ran for President again, he would win every time.


wasted potential - I don't wanna. I'm a theology major and carry a heavy obsession with religious studies. My family is filled with Nuns and my favorite Uncle was the Arch Bishop of Brazil and an incredible, INCREDIBLE man who I learned a lot from. When my sister was married she got a congratulations from the Pope. I LOVE to talk about religion but if I get started I will be here all night. It was meant as a joke, please take it as such.

wasted potential

Rocket Punch - I am not a hater of Clinton, I just happened to disagree with him on his core beliefs, but as a conservative I was glad he was so easily swayed to our side when it was politically convenient.

As to the 9/11 debunking of the Clinton opportunity to capture UBL, I will repost the quote from him in I think 2002 to some Long Island businessmen which fueled the whole story:

"The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again," Clinton confirmed during a February 2002 speech to a New York business group.

"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."

I asked Jeffraham this question and he did not know the answer. What did the 9/11 commission find that contradicted this? This is not a hoax, it is on tape and Clinton even had to later say he was wrong or something for saying it, I guess.

My question is this - if the whole thing is false and never happened, dreamed up by the right wing conspiracy wackos out there, why would he say this of his own accord in a speech to some businessmen on Long Island? Personally, it makes no sense to me.

My conspiracy buddies have an answer for this, but I am not sure I want to go down that road either, so please enlighten me!

wasted potential

Rocket Man - some other time we can exchange views on theology. I am not sure I could keep up with you, I only have a minor in Biblical studies, but it was from a Protestant school, so I am certain we would disagree on a whole bunch.

I can go on and on about theological arguments and my faith, but it is too late for that sort of thing. Maybe after the election.


wasted - I was not directing my Clinton comment to one person, but certainly you must realize that there seems to be a special thing with most conservatives and Clinton. My post was more an aggrivation at seeing the name "Clinton" in so many comments these day.

I don't know much about your quote. There seem to be a bunch of others that don't jive with it.

Clinton: To the best of my knowledge it is not true that we were ever offered him by the Sudanese even though they later claimed it. I think it's total bull. Mr. Absurabi, the head of the Sudanese government was a buddy of bin Laden's. They were business partners together. There was no way in the wide world this guy who was in business with bin Laden in Sudan was going to give him up to us.

The 9/11 commission investigated and agreed. I don't know how much I need or care to go into it more then that.

Wild Angel

Kerry's past is catching up with him at last. Tucker- you might want to check the Swiftvet Forum on this...

Navy Chief of the Swift Boat Veterans for truth has ALL the documentation detailing Kerry's DIShonorable discharge from the Navy. When Carter granted amnesty he got the record hidden. THAT is why he refuses to sign Form 180. He does not want this to get out...he ALSO doesn't want his connections to Hanoi released. Sadly, for Kerry, you can't keep a good Swiftee down.

Can you say October Surprise???

Check out the NY Sun Tomorrow for the breaking article...followed by an appearance on Monday on ABC talkradio- Hey? Isn't that the same station that carries Rush and Hannity??? Do they get many listeners???

Also- if you are in DC on Sunday afternoon- come on by the Capitol Steps for the RALLY TO STOP KERRY...all papers released- the liar exposed- and they have some heavy hitters in active service in the government backing them up...

This is no fluke- it is real. Watch the lying fraud go down in flames...I don't think he has "a plan" for this.




wasted - I would enjoy that. I've been almost cold turkey for about 8 years because I really do obsessed when I say obsessed. I am like that with politics right now. I can spend 14 hour days in research one after another after another. But, I think I am going to dip the toe in the water again next year. There are some new books I want to check out. Also, my interest in studying politics revolves around the propaganda of fear and I am also fascinated by those same aspects in many religions and I am starting to go on and on and please stop me someone before I ... I ... I think I need to go to bed. :)


Dear RocketP Sir:

"We had no basis to hold him, even though we KNEW that he wanted to commit crimes against America."
I believe it was proven later that OBL was responsible for the 1993 WTC attack. What on earth was Clinton doing all this time - playing ping pong? The 9/11 commissioners just did not want to blame Clinton for anything, and they went out of their way, around every available detour, not to. Puff and fluff.

Henry Schlatman

Wasted Potentail,
you ask RocketPunch about Jesus being a liberal and you say that you believe he is not as defined in Today's World. Please, expand on this issue. Do you not believe that a government of "We the People" should not ensure that those harmed by others in Our Society not be given justice? I'm pretty sure Jesus said teach the people to fish didn't he? As a political stand the liberals of this country has always stood for educating our people.

wasted potential

Rocket and Jeffraham:

OK, this is why many conspiracy theorists don't believe the 9/11 commission's report about the Sudan offer. Take the quote I provided earlier from Clinton and now fast forward to July 24, 2004 to the following article.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said Friday that he believed ex-President Bill Clinton when Clinton told the Commission he "misspoke" in a 2002 speech where he detailed an offer from Sudan to have Osama bin Laden extradited to the U.S.

But Kerrey also admitted that if he or any of the other commissioners had challenged Clinton's account, it would have split the Commission along partisan lines and short-circuited efforts to keep their findings unanimous.

"He said that he misspoke, so I believe him," Kerrey told WDAY North Dakota radio host Scott Hennen. "I choose to believe him on this issue."
When asked if his choice was governed by a desire to avoid a partisan fight with other commissioners, Kerrey told Hennen" "Yeah, but this isn't the only area where that's the case. ... We do that in the interests of having a 10-0 consensus."

The Nebraska Democrat, who once called Clinton "an unusually good liar" in a magazine interview, revealed that some of the other commissioners were angry at him for discussing Clinton's testimony about the Sudanese offer during a previous interview with Hennen.

"I got in trouble with the other commissioners because we weren't supposed to talk about what happened at that meeting," he told the WDAY host. "That was inappropriate for me to answer your question at the time."

In April, Kerrey told Hennen that the ex-president initially told the Commission that he had been "misquoted" in reports saying he confirmed the Sudanese offer.

But when pressed, Clinton changed his story, telling the Commission, in Kerrey's words: "I didn't understand the question. I didn't understand what the facts were. I didn't have a good recollection of what was going on."

In the Commission's final report, the change was characterized as Clinton having "misspoken."

Anyway, I guess Clinton sort of made the thing up when he spoke on Long Island, he checked with Sandy Berger's pants afterwards and realized his mistake before he talked with the 9/11 commission:)

The reason I am pushing this is not to irritate you guys, but when the word debunked is used, it usually means something is flatly settled. I could see a reasonable person doubting the veracity of the 9/11 report on this issue, given what Clinton said originally and how he was so easily allowed to backtrack out of it.

Throw into the mix the political pressures not to make either administration look bad and a consensus needed on every item - who knows, maybe my conspiracy theory guys are right:)

Henry Schlatman

Can we detain you for what you are thinking in America? Unlike Bush who wants to live Above the Law, Clinton tried to use the Laws that we live by to capture/eliminate OBL. As you want to place blame of the first World Trade Center on Clinton you should think of your stand. Election: November, 1992 Attack: 1993 Sounds like Election November 2000 Attack: 2001. Wake up to the truth.


Lin - so your defense, of course, is that the 9/11 commission was lying. *sigh* Okay ... Let's look at the origin. The oft-repeated right-wing version of the story originates from one Mansoor Ijaz, an investment banker now based in New York, a former "lobbyist for Pakistan" who is now a regular Clinton hit-man on conservative FOX News and the National Review. The story seems to have many variations, that Osama was offered up once, twice, even three times. However, Ijaz has no evidence that he was integral, and the Clinton White House denied he ever was. They saw him as self-serving, having business ties with Sudan, which was then under embargo for their terrorist ties, wanting the embargo lifted so he could position himself profitably when Sudan opened its oil fields for export as planned in 1997. Clinton's people had worked with Ijaz before in dealing with Pakistan, but this time disregarded him because of the conflicts inherent in his Sudan business connections, not to mention Ijaz's later tendencies to present himself inaccurately to several foreign nations as "agent" of the U.S. government. The Clinton administration underwent negotiations with Sudan without Ijaz, but Ijaz's self-important story gets repeated ad nauseam--by Ijaz himself--with right-wing platforms eager to give him air time and column space. Ijaz later made even more fantastic claims that he could get Osama extradited in 2000, again unsupported. Apparently, Ijaz would have us believe that he had Osama in a bottle and pleaded with Clinton to take him, but Clinton maliciously unleashed him to wreak havoc upon the world.

The Sudan claimed that it would arrest Osama and extradite him to another country, though the veracity of that offer has never been confirmed, and was doubted by many. But the Clinton administration tried to achieve this. However, the U.S. itself could not take him because at that time (and this is what the right-wing hatchet stories usually leave out), bin Laden had not been connected with any U.S. deaths, and the U.S. did not have any jurisdiction to try him. So they tried to convince the Saudis to take him, but the Saudis refused. To suggest that Clinton had the ability to nab bin Laden but decided not to goes contrary to Clinton's 10-week effort to get bin Laden put in a Saudi jail and possibly executed there. The deal was simply unworkable, pure and simple.

Henry Schlatman

wasted potential,
You have just wittnessed deniability of Clinton due to what he said about Sudan was internationally illegal. Although Our Country can do a lot, we must live within the International Laws that "We the People" have created. In plain english, Sometimes our Presidents must give a blank check to Our State Department to do what has to be done.


wasted - but your Clinton quote, which seems to bring the springboard to your argument against him, is just the tip of the iceberg of the story. It, by itself, really says nothing to what was a complicated situation.


Hey all - I have to get some rest. Great discussions tonight. Enjoy the weekend.

wasted potential

Henry - In His time on the earth, Jesus was considered a religious liberal by the religious leaders of His time. That is because His teachings on the law and the sabbath contradicted the teachings of the pharisees or the religious authorities of that day.

Jesus main teaching was that it was not enough to outwardly do good - your motivation matters. He said that if you look at a woman to lust on her, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart. He healed on the sabbath day in violation of the held traditions of the day. Ultimately, it was His perceived "liberal" teachings that drove the pharisees to seek His death.

Jesus taught us many other things. "Love your neighbor as yourself." As to helping the poor and needy He said that "if you help the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto Me." He fed the hungry, healed the sick and raised the dead. He then paid the ultimate sacrifice for all of us out of His love for us, rising from the dead Himself so that we could have eternal life.

Some of His other teachings were - "If your friend needs a coat, give him your shirt to." "If someone hits you on the right cheek, turn to him to the other also." "Bless your enemies and pray for them that persecute you." "Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things (meaning money, food, clothing) will be added unto you."

Really different teachings in His day and ours from the mainstream of both religious and non-religious institutions.

Now in today's world, it would not be possible for Jesus to be an active member of the "liberal" movement in America, at least not how I understand it. The reason is not government policy on taxation, welfare or other types of matters. Jesus commanded people to pay taxes to Caesar, while Paul commanded the church to respect the governmental officials, even though they were being put to death by some of those same officials.

The reason He would not be a liberal today is that, as I understand it, that term also refers to a radical agenda supporting abortion on demand and the homosexual lifestyle. Both of these are contrary to His own Word, the Bible and it is impossible for God to contradict Himself. The Bible teaches that God knows us in the womb, teaching that life begins well before delivery. The Bible also speaks very plainly that the homosexual lifestyle is not accepted by God.

These issues are not always politically correct, but they have been that way for more than 2000 years in scripture and cannot be changed to fit the times because of unpopularity.

wasted potential

Henry/Jeffraham/Rocket - Last post on this subject, but here is some more information about the Clinton statement, retraction of said statement and the 9-11 commission:

"In a March staff report issued by the Sept. 11 Commission, commission investigators said that every Sudanese official interviewed about the bin Laden offer confirmed the story, while every Clinton official they spoke to denied it.

"In his own April 9 interview with the Commission, Clinton said he'd been "misquoted" in reports claiming that he had confirmed the bin Laden offer.

"9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said two days later that at the time of Clinton's interrogation, he was unaware that staffers had obtained a videotape of Clinton's 2002 speech where he detailed the Sudanese offer.

"Clinton's expanded denials were posted to the CBS News Web site after Monday's "CBS Evening News" broadcast."

Well, I could still see how someone would say this story was not completely debunked by the 9/11 commission. Anyway, it does not matter now, he is still free and still threatening us.

It angers me to see him standing there like he is some sort of civilized leader. He is a blood-thirsty barbarian, bent of the destruction of our country.

Henry Schlatman

wasted potentail,
Who told you that to be liberal you had to believe in abortion or homosexual lifestyle? Please tell me it was not Hannity and Rush.

The political meaning of liberal is someone who believes that Our Government should do two major things. One; Stay out of our personal lifes. Two; Run Our Government so that everyone has their bare necessities meet and a roof over their head.

How we get to that point is going to take a Great Debate of Our Times. For if the rich in this country want to get richer and have less government than they have to learn to make the poor rich. Wish Our Country luck on that debate.

Henry Schlatman

wasted potentail,
You must understand that any American President can not admit that he broke International Law or they would be accountable for it. Could you see Bush43 standing trail right now over Iraq? No, sometimes it is best to leave a sleeping dog lie.


God, there are quite a few frenzied, little leftists posting here. The devotees of Clinton are only matched in fervor by those that are devoted to fat man Moore. They seem to be under the sad delusion that having your NSC staff pushing memos back and forth, {between downloading porn...}, actually constitutes effective ACTION against terrorists, and their sponsors. These Clinton true believers place a higher premium on discussed plans, than on making your enemies into corpses. Such creatures can't see the forest for the trees. If Clinton desired action to occur, it occured. If he wanted to meet the intern, he met the intern. Being President of the U.S., Commander in Chief, no cabinet member, no staffer, no objection made by some mid level twirp at Justice could have stood in his way. Clinton was not constrained in any way from going after bin laden. The only real and momentous brake existed in his inability to seriously address a national security issue. Clinton was a profoundly unserious man. But there are times that Clinton could make decisions, its just that they almost always inured to the injury of our country. For an example where clear, confident, precise Presidential direction blazed a trail, let us turn our eyes to China.

Early 90s, China wants targeting and guidance technology for their nuclear missiles, which up to that point had problems hitting the Pacific ocean. Every responsible agency tasked to examine the transfer of technology argues against it, {State, Defense, Energy, CIA, NSC, and others}. BUT, Clinton WANTED that sale to go through, so he turned to Commerce, then transferred responsibility for judging such sales to their control. Ron Brown promptly produced a favorable judgement on the sale, and away the technology went, {far be it from me to suggest that the deal was a campaign donation payoff}. Notwithstanding adamant and entrenched opposition to the transfer, the transfer went through. Clinton made it happen. China's nukes got accurate fast. In response, India immediately goes nuke. Clinton and his collection of the clueless and the witless are flabbergasted, stunned, stupefied, and caught flat footed. So they go to India and ask why they would do this, they respond YOU are the ones that put us at risk by making Chinese missiles accurate. While the Clinton creatures were still digesting and pondering this, Pakistan responds to India going nuke, by almost immediately doing likewise. The Pakistan nuclear program is headed by a fellow named A.Q. Khan, who will figure prominently in the programs of N. Korea, Libya, and Iraq. Now the Clinton administration is constrained by prexisting Congressional direction to initiate sanctions against India and Pakistan because of their nuclear program. The implementation of those sanctions caused a profound souring in relations between our countries. Now flash forward to Sept 11, 2001. What was the very first assignment to Colin Powell, GO CLEAN UP OUR RELATIONS WITH PAKISTAN AND INDIA. Relations that fell into disrepair because of the shit, stupid sale of technology to the Chinese. BUT HEY, Dan, your being too harsh on the Clintons, dont you have anything better to do with your time.

But hey, DIDNT Clinton STOP the Millenial bomber, because Clinton, Berger and Clarke were "shaking the trees," "issuing alerts," their "hair standing on end......" {Actually recalling this stuff is an exercise in gallows humour....} So one and all should accord the Slickster credit for stopping the bomber right? WRONG! One little bump, one little, speed bump on the road to claiming credit for this incident, is that the one who actually did pull the dirtball over, NEVER heard anything of a "heightened alert."

But hey, Clinton wanted to go after Saddam, he was alert to the danger, he "kept saddam in the box..." He, himself actually said he was thinking of removing Saddam, but he could not get the UN security council to aggree. Which is puzziling, if Saddam was in his box, how was it he was able to create diplomatic obstacles to removing him. If saddam was so in the box, why were his intel agents meeting with al qaeda, here, there, and everywhere. Why were his agents functioning in Europe, meeting with that dirtball Atta? If he was so "contained," "safely sealed," and "closely watched," if all this was the case, how was it he was able to orchestrate the greatest financial scandal in the history of the planet. How was it this fellow so "boxed" in was capable of doing that. How was it that he could bribe so many people, indeed so many governments. Indeed bribe them to such an extent as to present insurmountable diplomatic obstacles to a national security goal of the USA. But hey, these nagging little questions can all be answered by "moving on," by "putting it all behind us." Its all "old news."

To replay the Clinton years does not just take time, energy and patience. What it really takes is will, a will to endlessly and constantly expound the truth. To do so despite the frenzied, incoherent and inconsistent objections of those, whose worship of him reminds us that are sane, of some preliterate, barely clad tribe, worshiping some totem pole.

The comments to this entry are closed.