Clintons See Right-Wing Conspiracies Everywhere!
I didn’t realize that blaming the amorphous “right-wing conspiracy” was actually a pattern with Bill and Hillary Clinton. The Clinton Meltdown on FOX News Sunday is just the latest example apparently.
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post cites another. Note the similar language and hostile tone Clinton takes with the late Peter Jennings (hardly a right-wing tool).
Clinton has on occasion scolded other interviewers, most notably in a 2004 sitdown with ABC’s Peter Jennings, who drew this response after alluding to Clinton’s personal misconduct: “You don’t want to go here, Peter. . . . Not after what you people did and the way you, your network, what you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every, little sleazy thing he leaked.”
This was all started, of course, by Mrs. Clinton (as First Lady) creating the phrase “vast-right wing conspiracy” on NBC’s “Today” program. Mrs. Clinton was defending her husband against “false” charges of having an affair with an intern (which in all other cases is also sexual harrassment). Her husband did nothing wrong! (she said). It was all a vast-right wing conspiracy. And once again, the language used by her and her husband are very similar.
“I do believe that this is a battle,” the first lady said.
“Look at the very people who are involved in this. They have popped up in other settings. The great story here for anybody willing to find it, write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president,” Mrs. Clinton said.
The first lady called the sex and perjury allegations swirling around her husband part of an effort “to undo the results of two elections.”
She was wrong to believe him, wasn’t she? Weren’t we all?
How interesting that Bill Clinton’s finger-wagging moments are never ever his fault. But everyone else. The neo-cons, the mysterious “right wing” conspiracy. ABC News. FOX News. Ken Starr. The CIA. The military.
I found it most interesting in Clinton’s breakdown with Chris Wallace that he said “I have never criticized President Bush.” Well, that is an outright lie. I sat there watching him explode and thinking: “How classless. I can’t imagine President Reagan acting like this. He looks more like Nixon.”
What a very pathologically disturbed couple.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
54 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Mate, you must be pathologically disturbed if you’re gay and you identify with these right-wingers. You know they’d leave you tied to a barbed-wire fence in Wyoming if they had half a chance. My wish is that one day you find yourself amongst a crowd of your fellow political sympathisers in a dark alley sometime. If you think that sounds hostile, perhaps you should think about the kind of people with whom you sympathise.
I read a transcript of Bill Clinton’s comments on a media-watch website, and caught a bit of it on Aussie TV news. The episode got a good deal of coverage down here. Bill Clinton is admired; George Bush is detested. I didn’t see anything “melt-downy” with what Clinton said. I was glad to see him putting it to that little weasel Wallace. Why is it that when anyone confronts one of you rightists with the truth, you consider it unhinged?
I could write more, but it’s not worth the kilojoules (metric equivalent to calories) it takes for me to move my muscles to type this. My wife and I are Americans who emigrated to Australia last year because we were so sick of what your type is making America into. You know what? It’s much more gay-friendly here even than in San Francisco, where we used to live. In the hospital where I work, my gay co-workers are so accepted that their orientation isn’t even an item of conversation. It’s as irrelevant as the colour of their underwear. That’s so refreshing, the acceptance here — unlike the hatred all over America inflamed by your fellow travelers.
Like I say, may your kind one day surround you, mate.
Comment by Bukko in Australia — September 25, 2006 @ 11:24 am - September 25, 2006
It really is “I did not have sex with that woman!” all over again.
Clinton’s flailing, incoherent, frequently-irrelevant claims were bizarre.
Bukko, same for you
Congratulations on Australians having, um, rejected John Howard in your last elections.
Comment by Calarato — September 25, 2006 @ 11:32 am - September 25, 2006
Bukko, I’m very sorry for the Australians, but happy for us, that you moved down under. I notice that instead of giving a thoughtful analytical response to Bruce’s post, you malign him because you don’t agree with him, and then go for the “Bush sucks” close.
Don’t hurry back!
Bruce, nice post. Yes, lies flow easily off of Clinton’s tongue. “I never slept with that woman!” “I never criticized President Bush!” I guess it depends on what your definition of “criticize” is…
Comment by Pam — September 25, 2006 @ 11:51 am - September 25, 2006
Bukko has got to read this take on the Clinton meltdown
by the former head of the Bin Laden Unit of the CIA
http://newsbusters.org/node/7871
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 25, 2006 @ 12:49 pm - September 25, 2006
Agree - It is ‘must see’ - Scheurer, no friend of Bush (in fact a strong Bush critic), all but calls President Clinton a lying, raving nutcase who has now defamed the CIA and FBI.
Will add it to other thread.
Comment by Calarato — September 25, 2006 @ 1:03 pm - September 25, 2006
Ummm… in Crazy-Land.
See the other thread. Clinton in no way spoke factually. In fact, he was absurdly false / mistaken.
Comment by Calarato — September 25, 2006 @ 1:34 pm - September 25, 2006
I didn’t know that the phrase “Down Under” was also indicative of the libtard left’s collective IQ as well…
Whoever this bloke was in #1, he is obviously one of a minority if you look at the current trend in Australia’s political environment.
Rush is doing a great byte-by-byte analysis of Slick Willie’s emotional breakdown. Transcript should be available by 7 pm EDT.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 25, 2006 @ 2:00 pm - September 25, 2006
Perhaps you should see Michael Scheurer’s take on Clinton’s fibbing… link provided by Gene in #4 above.
Comment by Calarato — September 25, 2006 @ 2:58 pm - September 25, 2006
I certainly loved how Mr. Clinton bitch-slapped Wallace. Once again, President Clinton showed why he was such a great leader. Wallace looked like exactly like another liar, stammering about trying to justify the right’s pathetic slurs. Bravo Bill!
Comment by rightiswrong — September 25, 2006 @ 3:10 pm - September 25, 2006
Um… even the fake Australian accent came through in comment #1.
RIW & Anon - You must not have SEEN the whole interview. I did. The only one stammering was Clinton. Wallace sat back and was silent much of the time and let the Legacy Rage explode.
It truly was Clinton’s Tom Cruise Moment.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — September 25, 2006 @ 3:46 pm - September 25, 2006
“Wallace looked like another liar…”
Oh, puh-LEEZE. Mike Wallace’s son, the guy who has been to more RAT meetings and fundraisers than even James Carville, and now HE is a liar??? You guys are truly in La-La Land.
The only one who was lying was Slick Willie, and those lies can be documented. In fact, they already have been.
Note for example Bill’s comment about Richard Clarke and how he was “fired” from government service. It directly contradicts Clarke’s own autobiography where he states for the record that he resigned following 9/11 and has the documentation to prove it. Either Clarke lied in his own defense (and the media never picked up on it after the fact), or Slick Willie pulled another whopper.
Match, set, game. America wins.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 25, 2006 @ 3:55 pm - September 25, 2006
Why are we still arguing over this guy?
Let’s face it: BOTH Clinton AND Bush made errors and did things that gave assistance to the enemy. The only thing that Clinton did against Bin Laden was launch a missile attack into Afghanistan (which also just happened to have been on the same day that he appeared before Ken Starr’s committee)…and that was all! Both Bush Sr. AND Jr. had opportunities to go after Hussein and Bin Laden, but didn’t want to do anything that would upset the Arab world…causing OPEC to raise the price of oil, causing havoc with the American economy.
Let’s face the truth here: no matter WHO is in the White House, the guy in the Oval Office is going to give more ear to those people that will give the most money to their political campaigns, ESPECIALLY when their WIVES and SONS are going to be running for their jobs in the future, than they are going to listen to us who live in the real world, who care more about stopping another 9/11 than who is going to be the next Commander in Chief.
Oh, and by the way, I am as red-blooded a Republican as they come. So please don’t try to brush me off by trying to call me a “lefty”! I just want the Falwells and the Phelps of the party to GO AWAY, just like I would love to see Michael Moore and Alec Baldwin leave the dang country!
Comment by Jeffrey Williams — September 25, 2006 @ 4:09 pm - September 25, 2006
Any time a Clinton gets on TV the right fumes, spins and yells..you just can’t let your hatred go..And Rush does a Blow-By-Blow of the interview? What a waste of time!
Focus on the present….oh wait…Rightists don’t want to do that….
(By the way, the “blow-by-blow”, thats a joke)
Comment by keogh — September 25, 2006 @ 4:20 pm - September 25, 2006
Dang it, someone keeps breaking wind here! That sulfur smell…reminds me of the devil…oh, wait, I know who it is…or who they are…whatever.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 25, 2006 @ 4:34 pm - September 25, 2006
clinton kicked the guys ass. yeah, it was a little over the top with the repeated mentioning of richard clarkes 3 year old book, but you can’t just basically blame him for 9/11 and act like what you said was no big deal. wallace should have his head examined for that one. plus, clinton made some good points. for example, he basically said bin laden was full of it for calling the US a paper tiger in regards to somalia because for one bin laden wasn’t there and no one was saying bin laden at the time and they were there for a full 6 months after blackhawk down.
Comment by lester — September 25, 2006 @ 5:05 pm - September 25, 2006
“Bukko”,
Say hello to the puppets on your other hand: raj and Ian when you shift puppets. Now we have the raj/Ian/blah/Bukko quad of soxpuppets but who is the real guy behind the Green Drapes inside Oz? Is it raj? Is it Ian? I opt for the duplicitious and often excised-from-blogs-character known as raj.
BTW, for your own record raj –despite the phoney Aussie accent– down under they say “buck-o” not some pan-Asian Bukko… unless you’re translating Aussie speak from German… hmmmmm.
Get serious will you? And you still have some atoning to do for the past.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 25, 2006 @ 5:07 pm - September 25, 2006
#17 — Most people learn how to punctuate and capitalize by the third or fourth grade, by which time most people can also discern the difference between a temper tantrum and an ass-kicking. Your confusion, therefore, is not surprising.
Comment by Nobody — September 25, 2006 @ 5:14 pm - September 25, 2006
Because, when I look at Clinton’s red-faced histrionics, and his finger-wagging bullying, that’s what I see… a spoiled, petulant child who has never been stood up to. I also see in his sycophantic defenders a kind of cultish worship like that of a god-king who must never be questioned or criticized.
Bush, Rumsfeld, and Rice get much harsher questioning as a matter of routine, because the press out-and-out hates them, and yet none of them have ever lost it like Clinton did.
Comment by Nobody — September 25, 2006 @ 5:24 pm - September 25, 2006
Jeffrey, for being such an avowed Republican you sure have some creative talent for assessing “blame”.
You write: “Both Bush Sr. AND Jr. had opportunities to go after Hussein and Bin Laden, but didn’t want to do anything that would upset the Arab world….”
BZZZZT. Bush 41 was in office from 88-92 (unless the Left has changed the dates on that one too) and Osama bin Laden declared “war” on the US and Americans and the West in August 1996.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
or try the CFR, if you think the PBS is too LeftLiberal to be trusted
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9951/#3
But either way, 1996 would be under Clinton’s watch –not Bush 41.
Second, PrezClinton said “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes” and then passed on the perfect opportunity to reduce bin Laden, his son and that family PLUS the next generation of al Qaida terrorists to cockroach fodder but passed because SandieStuffYourPantsBurger and MaddieAllBright’s State Dept couldn’t get their act together even though the big cheese Clinton –who was probably doing some new intern upstairs in the private residence– had clearly outlined the US position on bin Laden.
Nope, it isn’t at all the way you present the picture –ie, both Clinton and Bush 41 and 43 had the opportunity and each deferred. The truth is that Clinton and his Administration –despite Bill’s new found sense of outrage– didn’t think bin Laden warranted the effort.
But I can understand that given that Bill was more concerned about the Democrats losing the White House at the end of his term or Clinton was distracted working on the growing list of felons to pardon, furniture to steal, wife to appease (Will she even let me sleep in the same house after we leave the WH?) et cetera.
When Bush 43 had the opportunity to take out bin Laden, he went for it after careful preparation and tactical positioning of assets. He’s still going after bin Laden. We got hundreds of other key al Qaida players… and more still to liquidate. But it’s happening as long as the ACLU and LeftLiberalDemocrats don’t “quick release” the terrorists through activist judges appointed by Slick Willie.
Let’s keep the eye on the ball before you rewrite history to include Pres Bush 41 as someone who missed the ball on bin Laden.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 25, 2006 @ 5:38 pm - September 25, 2006
#19… OUCH. Nobody is SomeBody. Touche on the lester-touch.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 25, 2006 @ 5:54 pm - September 25, 2006
of course you’d be impressed by that. it was superficial and had nothing to do with the topic. kind of like how bush does great campaigns and conventions but can’t do his job to save his life.
hey nobody- how about chossing ONE of my points and at least trying to counter it, coward bastard.
imchagfin matt doe you like this no matter how many words i misspell opr puncti\uatiuons i miss, i’m still smart and your still dumb
Comment by lester — September 25, 2006 @ 6:36 pm - September 25, 2006
#24 I suggest that you adopt the more apt screen name desperatelester. You have been reduced to begging for attention. How sad and pathetic. Perhaps if you had anything intelligent and/or serious to say, other posters would address your “points”.
Comment by BoBo — September 25, 2006 @ 6:49 pm - September 25, 2006
BoBo is it desperatelester or desperateloser?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 25, 2006 @ 9:29 pm - September 25, 2006
and he makes more money than any of us, too… now there’s some penis envy coming out on the economic platform.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 25, 2006 @ 9:30 pm - September 25, 2006
I like desperatelester for it’s aliterative quality. When you see something like this “hey nobody- how about chossing ONE of my points and at least trying to counter it, coward bastard.” the loser part is a tad redundant. I move that desperatelester join raj/ian as an official nom de blog on GP.
Comment by BoBo — September 25, 2006 @ 11:08 pm - September 25, 2006
BoBo, I second that emotion. Call to question?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 25, 2006 @ 11:32 pm - September 25, 2006
Gay Patriot? Aren’t you the textbook definition of a “sell out”. This Administration and it’s “base” would gladly see you dead, pal. What are you trying to get laid?
Comment by Syntax — September 26, 2006 @ 1:43 am - September 26, 2006
Thank you, Syntax; it’s been a while since we were reminded of the liberal and Democratic view that Republicans want to kill all gays.
We also needed refreshing on why raving, Kerry-kissing, Dean-doing Democrats are such immense hypocrites on the matter, accusing gay conservatives and Republicans of “selling out” as they pump tens of millions to these antigay bigots and cheer them as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 26, 2006 @ 2:13 am - September 26, 2006
Now that is a comment speaking volumes.
America - and yes, the Bush Administration - defends gays and gay rights from Islamo-fascism. Those familiar with world history know that today’s America is one of the best situations gays have ever had in any country or culture.
Yet, to be gay and a patriot is to “sell out”.
That’s Matt’s “GayLeftBorg” for you, folks.
Hmm. Seems to me that TAKING the payoffs (financial and otherwise) of life in America, while spitting on America or pretending to have principles that would put you above it, is the real selling-out.
Comment by Calarato — September 26, 2006 @ 2:17 am - September 26, 2006
15: Actually, any time Clinton gets on TV, he can speak a complete sentence, unlike the current president who is unable to do so without a script in front of him….
5 years, 15 days and bin laden is still free…..
Comment by Kevin — September 26, 2006 @ 4:14 am - September 26, 2006
I don’t know if anyone has brought this up, but the real reason Clinton never responded to the bombing of the USS Cole was because he was trying to broker an Israeli-Palestinian “Peace” Deal, and didn’t want to piss off the Palestinians by responding forcefully to their terrorist brethren. No way was Billy going to let 17 dead sailors come between him and the Nobel Peace Prize.
Also, if anyone believes Clinton’s “Global Initiative” is anything other than a big PR exercise designed to win him a Nobel Peace Prize, you’re as delusional as an Air America investor. Now, we can have two Nobel Lauerate ex-presidents traveling around the world, snuggling up to dictators, and bad-mouthing the United States.
Comment by Nobody — September 26, 2006 @ 5:19 am - September 26, 2006
#22 Matt,
You are exactly right. Let’s stop rewriting history.
Bush the First did not have a need to take out Bin Laden.
After all, Bush the First, was quite complacent in Arming Bin Laden, teaching him how to fight a guerrilla war and giving him other support.
And then of course Bush the First attacking Sadam Hussein after years of arming him and giving him support.
And then of course the disastrous hostage negotiations with Iran -perhaps some of those same weapons are being used in the bloody Iraqu insurgency.
So yes, lets stop rewriting history, a close analysis tells us that Republicans forged alliances with the parties that we are currently fighting.
Now those alliances are biting us in the ass.
History shows, republicans, not Just the Bush family, have made us unsafe.
Comment by keogh — September 26, 2006 @ 11:06 am - September 26, 2006
#35 Silly. Unserious. Typical.
Comment by BoBo — September 26, 2006 @ 12:59 pm - September 26, 2006
keogh/lester, if you want to place blame on using Afghan freedom fighters against the Soviets and compelling the Soviets to leave Afghanistan in humiliation and despair –then, ok, blame RR’s team for doing to the Soviets what JimmineyCricketCarter only dreamed about –forcing them out of a strategic position in the MiddleEast.
I guess that blame can fall to Bush 41 too, since he was the go-to-guy in the RR Administration when intelligence issues required review. Of course, one of the assets in the RR team was Bush’s sterling war record and his leadership of the CIA and his Congressional service. The military trusted him. The intelligence community saw him as “one of us”. It was a perfect fit; you’re right.
Now, compare and contrast that with Slick Willie… he was openly hostile to the military and his “service” was spent at anti-war rallies undercutting American troops in VietNam (gheez, doesn’t seem any different than now, eh?)… in fact, the military held him in contempt except for partisan lapdogs like Gen. John Shalikashvili.
BTW, factpuppy, Bush 41 did not “arm bin Laden”… bin Laden arrived on the scene in Afghanistan to “fight the Soviet aggressors” in which year keogh/lester?
Which year?
BZZZT. Wrong-oh our resident and fact-challenged puppy. The year was 1979.
Who was President then? Who capitulated at the Olympics to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Who is best known today as a cheerleader for the BlameAmericaFirst club? Heck, who’s the charter member of that club given his infamous “Americans suffer from malaise” speech?
Ding Ding Ding. You’re correct: JimmineyCricketCarter was President when bin Laden arrived on the scene in Afghanistan to follow Jimmieny’s lead and oppose the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
RR armed the freedom fighters when it made sense to our natl strategic interests to harass the Soviets and bring an end to the Cold War started by Harry Truman.
Well done, keogh/lester. We now return you to your usual moonbattery nonsense. Lesson over.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 26, 2006 @ 1:07 pm - September 26, 2006
By the way, while Clinton was practicing his moral outrage face in front of the mirror, the Coalition Forces (yes, moonbats, MattyBoi wrote “Coalition Forces” as in there are other nations with troops in Iraq) killed yet another high ranking al Qaeda operative and –more importantly– secured his communications equipment and other evidence needed to keep the terrorists from hitting the Free World one more time. Thank you George Bush for leading us in battle! More of the Mission Accomplished!
From the BBC today:
“Omar Faruq was shot dead while resisting arrest during a raid by about 200 British troops in Iraq’s second biggest city, Basra, British military spokesman Major Charlie Burbridge said.
US leaders have described Faruq as the top al-Qaeda operative in South-East Asia. He was caught in Indonesia in 2002 and held at a high-security detention centre at Bagram airbase, north of the Afghani capital Kabul, until his escape last year.
“The individual had been tracked across Iraq and was in hiding in Basra,” Major Burbridge said, calling him a “very, very significant man”.
Let’s see, Clinton killed how many al Qaeda terrorists while President?
lester/keogh???
BZZZZZZZZZT. Wrong-o. The number would be Zero, 0, nada, none, zilch. The same number of American hostages brought home from Iran while JimmineyCricketCarter was President… go figure; seems fitting, eh?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 26, 2006 @ 1:18 pm - September 26, 2006
#43 Nobody who is really somebody… fair points. I forgot how badly Clinton wanted that to occur –he saw it as something that could pull his sinking, sagging, miserably incompetent Presidency up out of the fetid swamp of lost-causes.
Forgot that point, completely. Thanks for the reminder and insight.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 26, 2006 @ 1:21 pm - September 26, 2006
correction: make that Nobody at #34, not 43.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 26, 2006 @ 1:22 pm - September 26, 2006
Actually, Matt, most of the sockpuppets here could qualify as being “nobody.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 26, 2006 @ 2:30 pm - September 26, 2006
Right, Peter… I’m still waiting for raj to admit he’s “Bukko” from up above.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 26, 2006 @ 3:01 pm - September 26, 2006
Matt, you are adept at leaving out key facts(Like all good rightists):
In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,…[which] authorize[d] covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies — a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, … as well as a “ceaseless stream” of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan’s ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.
You should stop trying to lean on your manipulated facts, it always makes you look so foolish.
Comment by keogh — September 26, 2006 @ 5:14 pm - September 26, 2006
Someone obviously cut-and-pasted the above information from a website, because it is not replete with the mangled spelling and grammatical errors consistent with that sockpuppet’s train of thought.
And besides…I think they broke gas, too. It always smells when they post, you know?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 26, 2006 @ 5:52 pm - September 26, 2006
Poll question which is more embarrassing?
1. Bill Clinton throwing a tantrum like a two-year-old at Kmart,
2. Bill’s sycophantic personality cult praising said tantrum as great leadership,
3. Bill’s sycophantic personality cult being unable to spell, punctuate, or provide any argument that was not spoon-fed to them by the left-wing nutroots?
Comment by Nobody — September 26, 2006 @ 6:12 pm - September 26, 2006
keogh at #43: you should know that it’s important for you to give credit for words which are not yours… it’s called plagarism when you do it, it’s called plagarism when JoeBiden does it. It’s called getting a “C” at Harvard when TeddieK does it. It’s called failing at Divinity School when AlBoreGore does it. It’s called “dating outside his gene pool” when Slick Willie did it at Oxford.
You stole those words from a July 92 WaPo article by Steve Coll. It was republished in the format you plagarized from WhatReallyHappened.com –a far LeftLiberal blog dedicated to undermining American resolve in the WOT.
keogh, you now need to do some ‘xplaining and an apology or two.
But to do that at the same time, in the same comment, in the same thread where you offer:
“Matt, you are adept at leaving out key facts(Like all good rightists)… You should stop trying to lean on your manipulated facts, it always makes you look so foolish.”
Hmmm, the color of your face should be bright red now… unless, like a lot of the lower-case-clan here, you have no shame.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 27, 2006 @ 9:59 am - September 27, 2006
Matt, you are DA MAN!
Libtards, this is what is known as “proportionate response.” Take a lesson.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 27, 2006 @ 10:48 am - September 27, 2006
Thanks Peter … now, let’s see if keogh/lester can actually admit the error of their way(s) and atone.
I’m betting they will be more like the raj/Ian/blah/Bukko soxpuppet where the truth is ignored, the dance step is changed and the evasion reaches fevered pitch until the little liars leave for a bit and hope “da peeples” forget.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 27, 2006 @ 11:21 am - September 27, 2006
well, now we know…the american public doesn’t buy the effort of the right-wing idiots who are trying to blame clinton for failing to get bin laden. the majority of americans know it was bush’s fault.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=24733
Comment by rightiswrong — September 27, 2006 @ 11:43 am - September 27, 2006
Matt,
I found it on findarticles - I don’t remember the exact link or I would post it.
And I think it was rather obvious that I copied and pasted it. Your feeble scream of plagerism is laughable.
Further, your partern is amazingly consistent, instead of dealing with the fact that you tried to play fast and loose with facts, you attack the messenger.
This is a classic symptom of hackiness and you better stop before you become a full scale hack.
Its no wonder that you do however, because the facts consitantly show that you are wrong.
Further:
I have a non political question for you:
My Gophers play your Wolverinese on Sat. they play for something called “the little brown jug”
Do people in Michigan even care about that or do only people in MN?
(considering our team historically stinks)
Comment by keogh — September 27, 2006 @ 12:05 pm - September 27, 2006
#49 - Matt, you were saying in your last paragraph…?
Personally, I think that leftiswrong is part of the lester401ksybil sockpuppet nation. But that’s just my opinion.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 27, 2006 @ 12:06 pm - September 27, 2006
Peter, keogh knows that only on the GayLeft can one point out deception and have the violator see it as a “personal attack” on the messenger, not the message. It’s the years and years of training those guys have had in VictimHood management. “I’m a victim! He doesn’t trust me! It’s a hate crime!” Silly musings from the GayLeft.
I didn’t expect keogh to acknowledge he stole the words and ideas of others and presented as his own… to do that would require character.
Hey keogh, but for you we’re running a two-for-one special… just admit you were wrong in presenting #43 as your words, ideas… we’ll be cool.
You can do it, keogh. Find the character in yourself or learn how to use “attribution”.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 27, 2006 @ 2:46 pm - September 27, 2006
Or keogh you can fall back on… “Well, everyone knows I was quoting someone else, I can’t write that good” as an excuse.
Oh wait, you tried that already. Sorry, missed your ‘explanation”.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 27, 2006 @ 2:50 pm - September 27, 2006
Instead of dealing with the facts, you feebly scream foul and then lay false charges…
Classic rightist tactic….If you were bush your next step would be to send me to Syria, utilize torture and then force me to sign something everyone knows is not true.
No wonder you guys are ruining Iraq and looseing the war on Terror….you refuse to deal with reality
Comment by keogh — September 28, 2006 @ 4:59 pm - September 28, 2006
“You refuse to deal with reality.”
Pot, meet kettle.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 28, 2006 @ 6:15 pm - September 28, 2006
keogh, keepin’ it real in the hood. Keep stickin’ it to the Man baby!!!!!!
Comment by BoBo — September 29, 2006 @ 1:05 am - September 29, 2006
Dear Matt,
Here is what I am trying to get at:
No matter who was on watch in the Oval Office, NOBODY was going to do anything in the Middle East that would have gotten us any REAL info about 9/11 or WMDs in Iraq because the policies of both Bushes and Clinton was to leave the Islamic world, ESPECIALLY Saudi Arabia, alone and hope that Bin Laden and the rest of the lunatics in that part of the world would just go away and leave our precious oil alone. But it didn’t happen. And now, BOTH parties are blaming the other for mistakes that were made that BOTH of them committed because they were more concerned with winning political races, than stopping terrorists.
PLEASE, stop trying to paint me as some “liberal”!
Comment by Jeffrey Williams — October 2, 2006 @ 12:27 pm - October 2, 2006