‘How Dare You!’

You won’t see me say this often, but I want to thank Bill Clinton for his speech Wednesday in Minnesota. I don’t agree with his policies and I certainly don’t want his wife to win the White House, but Bill Clinton said something that needed to be said — to 9/11 Truthers. A small group of them disrupted his campaign stop, and the former President got a little angry. Our local affiliate has the footage:

Here’s the rest of the quote:

One heckler shouted that 9/11 was a fraud, and Clinton bristled. “No, it wasn’t a fraud. I’ll be glad to talk about it if you’ll shut up and let me talk.” The heckling continued, and he told another heckler “these people did not come here to hear you speak. If you don’t have any self-control, we can deal with that.”
When a third called 9/11 an “inside job,” Clinton snapped back “How dare you? I live in New York, and I know who did that. You guys have got to be careful, or you’re going to give Minnesota a bad reputation.”

Thank you. (via MVDG Gazette)

72 thoughts on “‘How Dare You!’”

  1. God Bless the man for saying it.
    Not to grump, but the words, “Thanks, now where the hell ya been?” come to mind.

  2. Just heard that Forbes is predicting a Bloomberg/Gore ticket. I figure it just might have legs. There is no love lost between the Gores and the Clintons – especially after Clinton sat on his hands during the 2000 campaign. Since Gore loves the spotlight and since the Nobel prize appears to sound the death knell for any “cause”, Gore might benefit two ways. He gets the spotlight and he gets revenge.

  3. Another Sister Soulja moment. His “How dare you” while being the right words, had all the sincerity of Captain Renault’s expression of shock.

  4. If there’s one thing the Clintons have it’s accurate polling and they know the mood of the country better than anyone else, IMO. They may have a finger to the wind but they have the best pollsters money can buy and they know the retort that will garner them the most votes. The country is sick of hecklers or Clinton would have had a different response.(my opinion)

  5. Agree, Andrew X.
    This poisonous troofer nonsense has gone way too far.
    It weakens our country and encourages our enemies.
    I’m glad President Clinton said this, but I wish he would have said it earlier and louder.
    Finally, I would like to think that President Carter would have the same reaction, but I’m not really sure.

  6. I’ve read, that in psychological tests, it’s the people who see corruption and dishonesty everywhere that are the most corrupt and dishonest themselves. Everyone likes to believe that their ethics are better than the norm, and for some people, that would drive their perception of what’s normal pretty low.

  7. I tend to agree with RD.
    I can’t get the picture out of my mind of Hillary holding up the “Bush Knew” headline. And I have the suspicion that if it wouldn’t score them political points, Bill wouldn’t spank the “truthers” (aka “the utterly deceived”). The whole thing sounds a bit scripted to me.

  8. Stephen –
    Bloomberg?? Please. His campaign has got the legs of an earthworm. You’re absolutely right that Gore would have no qualms against running against the Clinton’s, but with Bloomberg? As the runner-up, no less? No way.
    Bloomberg has nada outside of NYC (not at all the case with Giuliani), and will make every bit as much of a splash in this campaign as Sam Brownback and Chris Dodd. Catch his campaign speeches when you can, ’cause there won’t be many more.

  9. My Dad just got an email from his old Army buddy that was a forward from a loooooong list of other military buddies.
    The email was in response to Pete Stark’s outrageous remarks made last week and the communications they made to his office because of it.
    The emails displayed an outrage and disgust towards Stark’s disrespect towards the military and the GWOT.
    Stark, just like Clinton will never change and just because Stark apologized and Clinton disavowed the Truthers claims, I suspect both to be disingenuous.

  10. Interesting and sad Captain.
    Compare and contrast with the treatment of David Horowitz at Emory University or Amadinejad at Columbia.
    What is missing? Context. Truthers have free speech rights when they shout down conservatives, not so when they address a liberal icon. If President Bush, Dick Cheney or Condi Rice had said anything approaching what Clinton said, they would have been labeled as opposing free speech.
    Truthers have been emboldened for years because the harsh treatment the mainstream media has directed at the Bush administration and conservatives in general. When Keith Olbermann regularly utilizes his free speech right to proclaim that President Bush is the “worst person in the world,” that bloody news reporter cowering in the corner is objectivity. Moral equivalence and relativism rule. There is no one truth.
    Unless of course you are Bill Clinton. Ha, ha, ha. Captain you’ve been had.

  11. Really Angry Dumbo? Because I read Blackfive’s description of attending a Horowitz event this week and this is what Uncle Jimbo observed:
    “The highlight of the event, but not the night, was when deranged 9/11 Truther and UW lecturer Kevin “I take moonbat as a compliment” Barrett jumped up early and tried to ask Horowitz to investigate 9/11. Much of the crowd knew who he was and they still began yelling for him to sit down and shut up. There was a Q&A scheduled for after but you know Truthers. He had to have his moment. Well he got it. The crowd both right, left, Muslims, Jews, Christians all decent people began the perfect chant. A**hole, A**hole, A**hole. He was browbeaten from the theater, deemed beneath the dignity of the proceedings.”
    No one has much patience with these 9/11 Truthers. They are the equivalent of Fred Phelps’ gang.

  12. Hmmmm. Remember, this is the Clintons. The Rembrandts of political timing.
    Remember the interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News when Slick Willy here, obviously on cue, went ballistic after mention of his efforts to get bin laden and stop terrorism? That was a staged performance in a scheduled interview.
    No different here. This was staged and scripted. Find the truther who heckled – ask him who told him to say what he did and when he said it.
    There is nothing real about either Clinton and this was no quirck of “fate.”

  13. You can say Clinton was opportunistic, and based on past history, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say any potential retorts to 9/11 Truthers were focus-group tested before he said them. But it’s the left in the Democratic Party that offers up chances like that, and Clinton would be crazy not to take advantage and give his wife some street cred for sanity among mainstream Democratic voters, the same way Giuliani has used Ron Paul as a pinata at two GOP debates so far when the question of who was responsible for the terrorist attacks has come up (And even if the whole thing was scripted, there’s no denying that a big chunk of the activists in the party actually do give the “Bush did it” claim credence).
    What the Clintons have to be wary of, though, is provoking their party’s wacky left side too much by being rational, to the point that enough of the netroots crowd decides to get away from their computers and go to Denver next summer to try and recreate the 1968 DNC Convention. I have no doubt they’ll be outside the GOP gathering in Minneapolis, all pretending to by Ron Paul backers, but no one’s going to believe that gambit. In contrast, the same people will have allies inside the convention hall in Denver, and that’s who the Clintons have to fear, since they can project the same negative images for Hillary going into next fall that Hubert Humphrey faced 40 years ago.

  14. This is something we can agree on. The truther’s are morons looking for the spotlight. Al Quaida did 9-11 all on there own with no help from anyone but their evil selves. The truther’s do have free speech rights but my contempt for them is only slightly less than OBL.

  15. While I appreciate Mr. Clinton’s apparent willingness to take on these nutcases, I can’t help but flashback to the last time he looked steely-eyed at someone and used that tone of voice…
    …right, Monica?

  16. “to the point that enough of the netroots crowd decides to get away from their computers and go to Denver next summer to try and recreate the 1968 DNC Convention.”
    Oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please.
    “I have no doubt they’ll be outside the GOP gathering in Minneapolis, all pretending to by Ron Paul backers, but no one’s going to believe that gambit.”
    Oh, I think you are misunderestimating the forces at work here. Paul -will- switch after the primary and run as an independent or libertarian in the general election. That’s the entire reason for his existence – to create the Ross Perot effect in Clinton’s favor once again. You don’t think all the superb spamming techniques being done for Paul’s benefit that bump his numbers in every single poll anywhere on the internet are being done by a couple of Paul fans in their basement, do you? That’s a -very- professional operation, requiring substantial funding. I’ll eat my shirt if Hillary isn’t all over that.
    That’s the game plan this year. Paul will run in the general and attempt to siphon votes off the Republican candidate so Hillary can win. Bet the bank on it.
    Qwinn

  17. Quwinn, Like the name, however it is so sad
    we have to think like we do about Clinton, he
    is such a liar, and really does respond badly to any criticism about 9/11.
    He has every reason to be defensive as he failed all through his time to do anything to help
    stop Al-Quada. She is too scary for many
    people because we will again be getting two
    for the price of one. I shake with nerves
    at the thought.

  18. It’s a sign of how crazy things have become that a former President is thanked for rejecting the notion that 9/11 was an inside job. This should be a given.

  19. I saw the clip yesterday and thought “He said the right thing, but it sure looked scripted. I wonder if the truthers are actually a set of Hillary staffers.”
    You have to play the clip to see that Clinton’s disgust at the truthers is very rehearsed.
    So, while he said the right thing, I’m wondering if it’s for the wrong reasons.
    I don’t recognize the two guys heckling Mr. Clinton — does anyone else?

  20. “It’s a sign of how crazy things have become that a former President is thanked for rejecting the notion that 9/11 was an inside job. This should be a given.”
    It’s the new age of the innertubes. Anyone can say anything or make nutty claims like the so called truther’s {liar nuts] and get it published instantly round the world.
    And a lot of people around the world just don’t trust the Bush administration and for whatever reason do trust Clinton. I agree that he should have said this earlier, but likely also felt it was a given, and he shouldn’t have to.

  21. Stephen Osborn, can you explain? Gore runs as a republican veep choice? It just doesn’t compute.
    Bloomberg also isn’t loved. Not apt to gain enough momentum to make it onto a 3rd party ticket. Let alone one he’d have to pay for! Where would he find the schmoe’s who’d get his name on 50 ballots? Don’t laugh. Before Perot collapsed, due to insanity, there were Americans in every state, getting the signatures needed for Perot to run. In 1992. If you think “this can come back,” than so can silent films.
    I think people forget that Bill Clinton was popular.
    He not only connects well on TV, he owned this talent while he was in the White House. And, Hillary really didn’t do half the crazy things you see Laura Bush pulling. Like sitting on a couch with for women (or men) disguised for Halloween. Totally covered in black tablecloths.
    Oh. And, then Laura puts on her own get-up.
    Hillary is not pandering to her base, either.
    I notice how comfortable Bill is in laying down the law to the idiots who try to make believe they are the democrapic party. No. Those freaks are not.
    While over on the right? You already know that to win, Rudy will toss the Supreme Court’s openings to the right. (Or as far as he can toss anything, if congress belongs to the democraps.)
    Oddly enough, 2008 is the republican’s race to lose.
    And, they seem to be trying.
    Yeah. I wonder why.

  22. I heard Bill Clinton’s comment last night on Nova radio and was shocked to say the least. I’m not sure what one is to make of his statement: “How dare you”? How dare you what??? How dare you think this administration would lie about something as serious as 9/11?
    I honestly don’t understand. I not one who subscribes to the idea that 9/11 was an ‘inside’ job. However, did the administration know there was a threat which involved airplanes hitting the towers? I think they did. Did they do anything to prevent it from happening? I don’t think they did and we witnessed this when we saw George continue reading “My Pet Goat”. Was the administration looking (hoping and praying) for another “Pearl Harbor” that would give them an excuse to bomb Iraq? I think they were. And, were some of us not surprised when, despite information already available to most of us, Bush and Cheney began to tie 9/11 to Iraq, despite the fact that 14 of the 17 hijackers were Saudi.
    At the same time, do we know that the Bush Administration ‘fixed the facts’ to get us in to the war in Iraq? I think we do as do many other Americans. Has there been loss of life over this lie? Yes, there has, and to this point, in numbers greater than the World Trade Center. We know that this administration planned to go into Iraq even before Bush took office and we know it was a real dilemna for them because they knew that Congress would not give them the authority without some big incident which could be construed as threatening America.
    So, my question for Mr. Clinton would be this: When you say with such indignance, “How dare you”, are you asking the heckler how dare he believe that his government or his (president) would lie to the American people?
    I believe the hecklers were treated in much the same way as Republicans treat anyone who disagrees with them. Have them thrown out, and try to convince the world that their questions do not deserve even to be answered. I know we don’t need another Republican president and I’d like to know how Hillary feels about Bill’s comment and I’d like to know what Bill meant.

  23. …do we know that the Bush Administration ‘fixed the facts’ to get us in to the war in Iraq? I think we do as do many other Americans.
    No, we do not know that. We know that Bush’s predecessor, his entire administration, and all the world’s intelligence agencies agreed upon the facts. You lefties keep trying to rewrite history. You have your little talking point in a word doc to cut and paste into every thread and its bs.
    You’re almost as bad as a trooofer.

  24. One of the things I’ve noticed is how divided people become when both ends pitch insults. Though, I’ll give credit to the left. They just do “insanity” better.
    But Hillary? She’s not catering to them.
    And, then, I thought to myself, what if she wins?
    What would she do in the White House that would really detail the horrors of letting the Saud’s run out country for these past 8 years?
    As to the name-calling; of course, the right does this as if everyone’s at Haaarvard. And, the techniques are really brutal. If you weren’t born with a silver spoon in your mouth.
    Is it possible for republicans to win without “RINO’s?”
    Has Bush really made the case that his years in office have done wonders?
    The bills come due, ya know.
    And, somebody’s gonna have a lot of ‘splaining’ to do. YOu just can’t toss bombs, ahead.
    Too many americans are just fatigued.
    What do you think ordinary Americans want, if you remove religion from the mix?
    By the way, Captain, this blog stands out because it does not enter the fray of name-calling, anyone. And, it’s here that you can see pretty much the opinions you’d get when the gates are open.
    But this isn’t standard practice for blogs.
    And, there’s no such thing as anyone not having preferences. I think that’s only natural.
    Let alone, when people go to the fights; they can watch something where the underdog suddenly picks up supporters … why? Because they keep hanging in there. Or, as Woody Allen supposedly said: Showing up is 80% of the job.
    Political theater. It ain’t boring.

  25. Does anyone else see the irony in this post?
    “I saw the clip yesterday and thought “He said the right thing, but it sure looked scripted. I wonder if the truthers are actually a set of Hillary staffers.”
    You have to play the clip to see that Clinton’s disgust at the truthers is very rehearsed.
    So, while he said the right thing, I’m wondering if it’s for the wrong reasons.
    I don’t recognize the two guys heckling Mr. Clinton — does anyone else?

  26. We need an on-line mug book to keep track of the truthers and those that display their stupidity every time someone, other than a lefty, speaks at one of the ‘tax supported colleges’. It would be of great interest to organizations looking to hire college grads in high paying jobs. They could immediately sort the traitors, loyal to no one, from the real American students.

  27. “…you’re going to give Minnesota a bad reputation.”
    Excuse me?
    Did the Wellstone Memorial slip his mind already?
    Is there anything that could compel Bill to be truthful, let alone sincere?

  28. “Whatever Bill Clinton’s faults, there never was nor needed any questioning of his patriotism.”
    Uhhhh… right. Just because he spent more time in inexplicable sabbaticals to the Soviet Union in between protesting America on foreign soil doing the Vietnam War then he did honoring his written commitment to serve in the ROTC which he used as a draft dodge, and during his Presidency had a fire sale of highly sensitive military technology to the Communist Chinese in exchange for campaign funds, that’s no reason to doubt his deep commitment to America.
    Okie. Whatev.
    Qwinn

  29. Qwinn said:
    Oh, I think you are misunderestimating the forces at work here. Paul -will- switch after the primary and run as an independent or libertarian in the general election. That’s the entire reason for his existence – to create the Ross Perot effect in Clinton’s favor once again. You don’t think all the superb spamming techniques being done for Paul’s benefit that bump his numbers in every single poll anywhere on the internet are being done by a couple of Paul fans in their basement, do you? That’s a -very- professional operation, requiring substantial funding. I’ll eat my shirt if Hillary isn’t all over that.
    That’s the game plan this year. Paul will run in the general and attempt to siphon votes off the Republican candidate so Hillary can win. Bet the bank on it.
    Qwinn
    Eric says:
    Yep 100% correct Qwinn. It is going to happen, and it is being supported by Clinton Inc.

  30. Paul will run in the general and attempt to siphon votes off the Republican candidate so Hillary can win. Bet the bank on it.
    Given the dislike for Clinton in the Democratic party, that could end up backfiring.

  31. “and during his Presidency had a fire sale of highly sensitive military technology to the Communist Chinese in exchange for campaign funds, that’s no reason to doubt his deep commitment to America.”
    That’s a pretty serious charge. I suppose you have hard evidence of this treasonous act. I mean evidence that’s not speculation, of course.
    “Uhhhh… right. Just because he spent more time in inexplicable sabbaticals to the Soviet Union’
    Maybe he was getting KGB training. Clinton a Soviet Spy. Absolutely fascinating.

  32. Posted by unclesmrgol | October 26, 2007 11:02 PM
    Chris Percell,
    How dare you!
    Eric says:
    Can’t be said any better.

  33. whipporwill said
    “This is something we can agree on. The truther’s are morons looking for the spotlight. Al Quaida did 9-11 all on there own with no help from anyone but their evil selves.”
    Very good! Now, if we can just get you to believe what Bill Clinton’s Justice Department said about al Qaeda in 1998, namely that they were working with Iraq, your rehabilitation will be well on its way.
    Now, seeing as you’re not a right-wing neo-con, can you explain to us what drives these WTC Building 7 people? Is their derangement just based on their sheer hatred of the evil Bush, or something deeper?
    And would they have reacted the same way if 9/11 had happened with someone else in the White House? Eespecially someone from another political party?

  34. Everything either Clinton says is scripted and poll-tested. (an aside: that’s why Bush bumbles in his speech – he isn’t reading from prepared mental flashcards – he’s actually trying to answer the question posed.)
    I believe that the Clintons polled the positive reaction when Bill Maher had some troofers frog-marched from his studio and filed away a suitable ‘sincere righteous indignation’ response for when the next 9-11 conspiracy-nut heckler spouted off.
    They also know that the General Betray Us and Stark comments were not playing well outside of Kosville.
    It’s just another phony attempt to make it appear that there is distance between Hillary and the looney left.

  35. Sure, it is nice to see an unethical Politician chastise insanity.
    But Bill always gets mad when folks interrupt him, and disrupt attention on the focus of him.
    Unfortunately, his wife promoted conspiracy theories long ago.
    Hillary Clinton displayed an ugly NY POST HEADLINE on the Senate floor a few Months after the horrific attack on the WTC, which implied President Bush knew about 9-11.
    It was about as ugly as possible…
    The pathetic ‘truthers’ in took the wrong tactic, and could have had Bill’s embrace by politely asking if ‘Bush had done something to enable the 9-11 tragedy’.
    Then Bill would have fully offered an ugly unethical smear…

  36. hnav. Good point.
    I’m surprised (and disappointed) that the Capt “thanked” Clinton for the same reasons already mentioned above…
    One additional point: The “real” troofers (the ones who are NOT certifiably insane)— “dave” the shyster comes immediately to mind —are NOT Democrats per se. It would be a mistake to think that they would be doing less rabble rousing if a Democrat were in the WH.

  37. Looks like a set up. How easy it is to please the right.
    If not, Clinton was just upset they had the temerity to interupt him.

  38. Good lord, the WingNuttery sure has some loony-tunes. Will you guys listen to yourselves?
    How do you function in the real world? Oh, wait, this is the non-reality-based community.
    Never mind.
    You may return to adjusting your tin-foil hats.

  39. Whipporwhill,
    “That’s a pretty serious charge. I suppose you have hard evidence of this treasonous act. I mean evidence that’s not speculation, of course.”
    Are you saying you never even -heard- of the Chinagate scandal of Clinton’s presidency?
    I mean, I know the MSM did their best to downplay it, as they did every scandal -except- Lewinsky since they could play that one as heavy handed Republican moralizing, but I thought anyone with an interest in politics would at least have heard of Chinagate by now.
    Here, read this. I know, it’s Newsmax and it’s not the best source, but this particular article does compile the information in a pretty succint manner. If you seek better sourcing, googling Chinagate will get it for you.
    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/26/214938.shtml
    An excerpt:
    ———————————————
    To this end, Clinton appointed anti-nuclear activist Hazel O’Leary to head the Department of Energy. O’Leary set to work “leveling the playing field,” as she put it, by giving away our nuclear secrets. She declassified 11 million pages of data on U.S. nuclear weapons and loosened up security at weapons labs.
    Federal investigators later concluded that China made off with the “crown jewels” of our nuclear weapons research under Clinton’s open-door policy – probably including design specifications for suitcase nukes.
    Meanwhile, Clinton and his corporate cronies raked in millions.
    In his book “The China Threat,” Washington Times correspondent Bill Gertz describes how the system worked.
    Defense contractors eager to sell technology to China poured millions of dollars into Clinton’s campaign. In return, Clinton called off the dogs. Janet Reno and other counterintelligence officials stood down while Lockheed Martin, Hughes Electronics, Loral Space & Communications and other U.S. companies helped China modernize its nuclear strike force.
    “We like your president. We want to see him re-elected,” former Chinese intelligence chief Gen. Ji Shengde told Chinagate bagman Johnny Chung.
    Indeed, Chinese intelligence organized a massive covert operation aimed at tilting the 1996 election Clinton’s way.
    Clinton’s top campaign contributors for 1992 were Chinese agents; his top donors in 1996 were U.S. defense contractors selling missile technology to China.
    Clinton recieved funding directly from known or suspected Chinese intelligence agents, among them James and Mochtar Riady, who own the Indonesian Lippo Group; John Huang; Charlie Trie; Ted Sioeng; Maria Hsia; Wang Jun and others.
    —————————————–
    Recent news concerning Norman Hsu and large and wildly improbable Chinatown donations only support the ongoing relationship.
    Qwinn

  40. Qwinn, you could post a hundred of those and it won’t “change anything”.
    What’s wrong with “leveling the playing field”? Don’t you know that the lefties your “debating” think that U.S. military superiority is the “cause” of most of the trouble in the world today?
    You know you’re in trouble when a dingbat tells you to “adjust your tin foil hat”…even as his own tin hat (complete with propellor on top) keeps slipping of the side of his pumpkin-like head?

  41. dear Quinn and mr catsup.[delmonte that is.]
    You try and be a decent soul and agree with the wingnuts when it’s warranted and you get your shins kicked for your troubles.
    I can’t improve on crossdotcurve’s observations;
    “Good lord, the WingNuttery sure has some loony-tunes. Will you guys listen to yourselves?
    How do you function in the real world? Oh, wait, this is the non-reality-based community.
    Never mind.
    You may return to adjusting your tin-foil hats.

  42. Capt. Ed, it’s been said a million times. “Nothing, absolutely nothing, happens with the Clintons by accident.”
    If hecklers interrupted his speech and gave him an opportunity to say something that would please some on the right, odds are it was planned by the campaign. Their heckling was too predictable and his response to ready to think it had to be spontaneous.

  43. I don’t often agree with President Clinton, but he did the right thing in this case, and he has(a few times) in the past.
    The Truthers need look no further than Clinton to understand it COULDN”T have been an inside job. Basically, how can the same government that couldn’t keep a BJ from a fat intern a secret manage to keep a secret of 9/11 level magnitude, along with all the people who would be needed to be kept quiet.

  44. So. We establish the quid pro quo – the bribe and the result of the bribe. We have the names of the bag men, and the names of the Chinese intelligence agents. We have a dozen new revelations a week popping up about more inexplicable huge amounts of money coming to the Clintons from Chinese sources.
    The scandal was brought to light by none other than Bob Woodward.
    22 people were convicted of fraud and for funneling Asian money into the US elections.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy
    But that’s all tin foil hat territory. Meanwhile, we -still- hear about how corrupt and bought-and-paid-for Tom Delay was, without one ten-thousandth of the evidence.
    Okaaaay then.
    Sorry, whippoorwhill, should’ve known better than to waste my time assuming you wouldn’t dismiss any information that made you uncomfortable out of hand.
    Qwinn

  45. My apologies Quinn, for lumping you in with catsup man. Your posts, while fantastical, have been polite as have you.
    “So. We establish the quid pro quo – the bribe and the result of the bribe. We have the names of the bag men, and the names of the Chinese intelligence agents. We have a dozen new revelations a week popping up about more inexplicable huge amounts of money coming to the Clintons from Chinese sources.”
    I will agree the CLinton’s have been too reckless at times with their fundraising, and should be called on it. As have many other politicians in our political system. The Clintion’s more so, possibly. But to suggest that they’re in cahoots with Chinese spy’s and selling state secrets is a bridge too far.
    Pardon. but the Clinton’s had a partisan right wing Special Prosecuter examine every thread of their lives and presidency and came up with nothing, after 60 million worth of witch hunt.
    I doubt there is a president in history that’s been investigated more than the Clinton’s.
    If anyone has real evidence of crimes committed by the Clinton’s, then it should be turned over to the DOJ. Otherwise, all of your allegation’s fall into the same category as the “truther’s” .

  46. Please read the wiki link I supplied. It goes into detail on how that investigation was deliberately impeded. Even with 22 convictions, they were never even allowed to interview Clinton or Gore on the matter.
    The investigation into Filegate – where Hillary had files on hundreds of her political opponents sent to the White House “by accident” – and can you BELIEVE that the media bought the “by accident” line in totality with no questions asked – was similarly obstructed. This was infinitely worse than what Nixon did – which was hire -private- detectives to investigate his political enemies. The Clintons actually abused their executive power and used the government to wage war on their political enemies. That Nixon is held to be the more abusive of the two is completely unsupportable.
    Qwinn

  47. Qwinn —
    No doubt the Hillary folks are hoping to turn Ron Paul into the Ross Perot of the 21st Century next fall. But their logic blows a gasket when you look at the rationale for the two campaigns.
    Perot ran mainly as a fiscal conservative who attacked Bush 41 for failing to get the budget deficit under control. Conservatives already angry with GHWB over the 1990 tax hike agreement with Foley and Mitchell that reneged on the “Read My Lips” pledge were receptive to that argument.
    Ron Paul may follow the same line when it comes to being a deficit hawk, and he may even be a major abortion opponent. But his main claim to fame right now isn’t that, it’s being the lone Republican presidential candidate who seems to be voicing not only the anti-war message, but parts of the netroots’ claims that the U.S. brought 9/11 down on itself. In a general election, that’s not a message that’s going to pull too many Republicans away from the party, but could convince a few truthers to pull the handle for Ron instead of for Mrs. Clinton.
    The Clinton hand may be there in the Paul hype and online poll rigging, but the strategy is flawed. I suspect they’ll come to that realization soon and will try a different tactic, such as trying to get religious conservative leaders to push a third party bid if a candidate not to their liking gets the GOP nomination.

  48. “But to suggest that they’re in cahoots with Chinese spy’s and selling state secrets is a bridge too far.”
    I can’t see how anyone can possibly say this after reading the wiki link with even a skeptical eye.
    Qwinn

  49. I am very familiar with our laws on international arms trafficking. Even talking to a “non-US person” about an arms-controlled product requires licenses approved by Defense, State and perhaps, Commerce.
    Loral and Hughes obtained permission to launch a US DoD satellite aboard a Chinese Long March ICBM. Loral wanted to use these missiles because they were cheap. DoD was concerned about allowing the Chinese to see the satellite’s sophisticated technology, but they were overruled. The Chairman of Loral, Bernie Schwartz, was the largest single contributor to the DNC. In mid February 1996, first missile blew up 30 seconds after launch. While access to satellite was never granted to the Chinese, Loral sent an engineering team to China to evaluate the accident.
    The Loral team found bad solder joints in the guidance system were at fault and told the Chinese how to repair them. This fix corrected guidance problems on nuclear tipped Chinese ICBMs pointed at us. While the investigation showed that the satellite technology was not given to the Chinese, the know how to correct their missile guidance certainly was.
    Even the MSM agree.
    Timeline:
    http://www.fas.org/news/china/1998/h980618-prc8.htm
    CNN Report:
    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/22/china.money/
    Arch

  50. John,
    Possibly. It was actually thinking about which party Paul would steal more votes from that led me to my theory. The thing is, I think it’s aimed at the paleocons. There’s more than enough of them that their failing to vote for the pub could easily swing the election (witness what 500 votes did in 2000). More than a few libertarians that could swing his way too. More than the truthers? Nah. I don’t think so. Some might, but there’s more in the paleocon and libertarian camps that will switch over. As soon as the primaries are over, the netroots will go into overdrive make sure the nuts stay in line and vote for Hillary.
    Qwinn

  51. Er, that should have said “Will more truthers switch to vote for Paul? Nah, I don’t think so.”, not “More than the truthers? Nah I don’t think so.”
    Qwinn

  52. Arch et al.
    “Debating” these guys is futile. They “believe” that the lopsided advantage DoD has over the rest of the world is “destabilizing”. Therefore the concept of “leveling the playing field” is VERY important strategically…
    A better question for them would be “WHY” is this a better strategy…unfortunately, most of the trolls on this site are just “useful idiots” in that they don’t even know what the far-left’s strategy is hoped to achieve.

  53. Quinn
    Ok. The Chinese government was attempting to influence American elections thru illegal campaign contributions or other means. What else is new. Do you think the Chinese are the only ones that have attempted this over the past 200 + years. Did Clinton commit stupidity in this instance, I’d say yes. Did he commit treason and sell out to the PRC for some evil purpose? I’d say no and if he had it would’ve been found out with or without his testimony. Again, show me the evidence, real evidence Quinn.
    And while we’re on the subject of possible conspiracy theories of foreign gov. trying to influence our politician’s, I’ll provide one from other direction.
    We cannot find out the truth because the Bush Admin. silenced all investigation by imposing the State Secret clause. Something Clinton never did with the PRC allegation’s.
    I’m fairly new to blogging and I don’t know how to make a link without a tag bar. But you can visit the Wiki entry under “Sibel Edmunds”

  54. Tom Shipley:
    I noticed! Here’s another crazy conspiracy theorist:
    “If hecklers interrupted his speech and gave him an opportunity to say something that would please some on the right, odds are it was planned by the campaign. Their heckling was too predictable and his response to ready to think it had to be spontaneous.” -Mike
    And then there’s the Chinese spy conspiracy…
    People on this site love conspiracy theories. Only the kind that fit their world-view, however.

  55. “I read Blackfive’s description of attending a Horowitz event this week”
    Teresa, read the fine print. “A Horowitz event . . . ”
    Either sloppy posting (of which I have plead guilty on many occasions) or a nice piece of disinformation.
    You mean Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week? It was a week long.
    http://www.terrorismawareness.org/islamo-fascism-awareness-week/49/a-students-guide-to-hosting-islamo-fascism-awareness-week/
    Blackfive’s Jimbo posted on 10/23 of the opening event on the University of Wisconsin – Madison on October 22. Horowitz was forced to stop speaking at Emory University on October 24!
    Surely you are familiar with Frontpage. Here is the Emory video.
    http://www.incorrectu.com/2007/10/24/liveblogging-ifaw-at-emory-university-with-david-horowitz/
    And Horowitz’s response.
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/Default.aspx
    While you are at Frontpage check out the video, narrated by Nonie Darwish, The Violent Oppresion of Women in Islam, which has been banned by YouTube. Horowitz’s portrait of Islam: ritual female genital mutilation in Somalia, honor killings, 9 year old girls legally married to their uncles in Iran. This is substance that cannot be ignored.
    I’m sure Jimbo at Blackfive has his own reasons for disliking Horowitz, Limbaugh, and O’Reilly. Still he says that he “agrees” with 90% of what Horowitz had to say only feeling that his delivery was boring, and the substance of his remarks was combative and counter-productive.
    The point is that the substance of Horowitz’s remarks need to get out regardless of whether you subjectively find the dialog counter-productive or his delivery “boring”.

  56. Okay, first off, the leftie posters here REALLY need to stop using the “you’re a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist” nonsense. You guys are long past the point where you have any credibility in this regard.
    YESTERDAY, we’ve got Randi Rhodes on your wonderful Air America claiming that Blackwater started the SoCal fires. Okay? You got that? Blackwater started the SoCal fires. THAT is a batshit crazy conspiracy theory. And speaking of Rhodes, just last week, her being pummeled to the ground by 12 vodka martinis was turned into a right-wing revenge beating. The Truthers are batshit crazy conspiracy theoriests. THIS is the kind of shit that belongs under the title “tin foil hat”, okay?
    You guys, though, you’re screaming “tin foil hat” at any suggestion that the Clintons aren’t pure as driven freaking snow. We can show massive amounts of money going from the Chinese to the Clintons (as even whipporwool has conceded) in one direction, and massive amounts of otherwise inexplicable acts of tremendous benefit to the Chinese such as millions of pages of data regarding nuclear technology declassified by his administration, the missile technology help that arch mentioned, and others. You don’t even offer the slightest hint for WHY reams of nuclear weapons technology papers would be declassified – what POSSIBLE purpose there could be for doing this other than returning a favor. You just assume the Clintons are innocent, and demand a level of proof so staggering that it won’t be satisfied by anything less than catching Bill Clinton himself handing over documents to Chinese officials in some dark alley, as if it would ever happen that way.
    Do you guys demand anything more than we’ve already shown when you claim Tom Delay is the Sultan of Corruption? There wasn’t one tenth of the quid pro quo going on there, and yet for you guys it was case freaking closed.
    Your side repeatedly jumps to conclusions based on NO DATA WHATSOEVER. Complete and total conjecture based on nothing more than the assumption of venal motives. We show that Clinton received tons of money from the Chinese (and is still doing so), and a tremendous amount of military secrets went in the other direction. Your double standards for acceptable proof and what comprises a “conspiracy theory” are staggering, it’s unbelievable.
    Qwinn

  57. Oh, and whipporwhool, your main objection seems to be because they were investigated and if it was true it would’ve come out. Well, leave aside for the moment that there -were- 22 convictions.
    What you don’t seem to realize is that every single investigation during the Clinton presidency was utterly compromised. You know why? Because of the very first scandal – Filegate. Were you aware that the “partisan Republican” that chaired the Filegate investigation and cleared the Clintons on the matter -was one of the people who the Clintons got an FBI file on-?? How insane is that? Can you possibly think of any way it could have been more compromised? If it were the other way around – if Nixon, for example, had gotten the FBI to investigate his enemies, gotten thick FBI files on them, then appointed one of those people he had files on to the investigation and that person promptly cleared him on the matter, you’d rightly be in apopleptic fits over it.
    Qwinn

  58. Clinton bristled. “No, it wasn’t a fraud. I’ll be glad to talk about it if you’ll shut up and let me talk.” The heckling continued, and he told another heckler “these people did not come here to hear you speak. If you don’t have any self-control, we can deal with that.”
    Now try this…
    Bush bristled. “No, it wasn’t a fraud. I’ll be glad to talk about it if you’ll shut up and let me talk.” The heckling continued, and he told another heckler “these people did not come here to hear you speak. If you don’t have any self-control, we can deal with that.”
    Thought experiment. Which scenario would earn praise, and which would be splashed across the headlines as evidence of latent Nazism?
    There are two reasons for the obvious disparity in how the two examples would be treated.
    One is obvious – media bias:
    – The media loves Democrats in general, the Clintons in particular, and Bill Clinton to a degree that is beyond fawning, and loves to portray conservatives as latent Nazis.
    The second reason is more telling, in that it is not consciously evident even to the media:
    – Seeing a Democrat accusing terorists of actually being evil, and standing up to the left-wing base of the party, is automatically perceived as exceptionally good – it’s like the drunken father coming home with his full paycheck for once!!
    This situation is actually a Democrat’s nightmare, when different Democrat factions are allowed to mix, and it is impossible to pander to both. So the media have to pick one side or the other, and since it is Himself speaking, the choice is not really a choice at all.

  59. To Qwinn
    “Oh, and whipporwhool,”
    I hope your aware that by spelling my handle wrong, that instead of insulting me, you are smearing a wonderful bird that is only a few notches below the Eagle as a national icon. Well, maybe 6 or 7 notches.
    As for the rest of your rantings, I suppose one could conclude that Senator Clinton cannot count on your vote in 2008.

  60. Sorry about the name thing, I’m usually okay with names but that one was just too long for me to devote the energy to spellchecking.
    Describing what I wrote as “rantings” – as if I haven’t backed any of it up and your instant dismissal of it as equivalent to “fire has never melted steel” truthery nutness was utterly fair, means it’s been a waste of time talking to you, you’ve got your narrative and you’re sticking to it. Oh well. Not like it’s a big surprise or anything, but I thought I’d extend the benefit of the doubt. If I’m insane, it’s only by virtue that I keep doing -that-… extending lefties the benefit of the doubt that they’re not beyond reason or evidence, and that they won’t just respond to every challenge with namecalls and smears. But according to you, the money going one way and the military secrets going the other is JUST EVERY BIT as crazy and unsupported as Randi Rhodes saying Blackwater started the SoCal Fires. Oh well.
    Qwinn

  61. Am I one of the few people seeing the combination of irony and hypocrisy in Clinton’s reaction to the “truther” loon? Especially when the Clintons and their war machine effectively smeared so many people over the past couple of decades (some smeared into silence) with untruths? After the “truther” loon got thrown out on his ass, Bill Clinton should have been next. Sorry, Clinton fans, but you need to address “How dare you!” to Bill Clinton as well. To not do so is to ignore the hypocrisy and embrace it yourselves.

  62. I wonder if Hillary will have a problem finding a running mate willing to play 3rd fiddle…behind Bill and Hillary.

  63. Qwinn, that’s an interesting speculation about Mrs. Clinton’s operation funding Ron Paul’s, with the aim of creating a third-party diversion to pull votes from the Republican candidate.
    But—do you have any evidence that it’s true, e.g. records of funds being transferred?
    Too bad we don’t have an objective media interested in looking into possibilities like this. . .
    What a minute! We do! It’s called the blogosphere. Go to it guys!
    /Mr Lynn

  64. America-Could We Lose It?
    About ten yeras ago, while I was researching my first book, The Languages of the Former Soviet Republics-Their History and Development, I gained a lot of insights into the history of the Soviet Union itself and how it collapsed. True, Gorbachev and his reforms, followed by the attempted coup were the final contributors. Ronald Reagan kept up the pressure on the USSR with his defense programs, also helping push them over the edge. However, one of the largest factors in the collapse of the USSR was the re-awakening of the non-Russian republics and peoples in favor of their own identities and languages. Gorbachev’s glasnost and perestroika reforms had allowed the non-Russian peoples to once again discuss these issues, which, beginning under Stalin, had been severely repressed. The eventual result was a move to independence, led by the Baltic republics. In the end, the collapse of the USSR shocked the world-a major superpower collapsing under its own weight without being conquered militarily by any other power.
    I often wonder if the same thing could happen to America. Obviously, there is no other power or combination of powers that could invade us and defeat us militarily. Yet, could we, like the former Soviet Union, suddenly collapse from within? It is tempting to quickly say no, that our free and democratic system has proven itself to be resilient, even during times of crisis like Watergate and the resignation of Nixon. Yet…….
    It is obvious to everyone that we (and the rest of the world) are facing a major new challenge in Islamic fundamentalism that not only threatens to blow up the entire Middle East, but is threatening other nations as well from Europe to Asia to the Americas. Leaving the rest of the world aside for a moment, I feel confident that a united America could face this challenge.
    However, we are not a united America. We are divided in a whole host of ways. We are divided by politics and philosophy, even to the point where we talk of red states and blue states. In spite of our best efforts, we are divided by race and class. In spite of the monumental Civil Rights Movement, the situation in the black inner cities is at a crisis point. Many blacks are still disaffected from white society, spurred on by “leaders” such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. The illegal immigration issue is dividing many Latinos from the rest of us as many of them see the demands for border enforcement as being racist. Our Muslim Americans are feeling alienated from mainstream society, especially since 9-11. Many of them feel that Americans distrust them as Muslims. They feel that their religion is under attack here and abroad. The issue of Israel has led to tremendous friction between them and our Jewish citizens.
    That last point, of course, relates also to the war in Iraq, which divides us all, much as the Viet Nam War did. As many Americans protest that war and our whole involvement in the Middle East, some even question the War on Terror, wondering how such a war can be won.
    More importantly, however, is the growing sentiment among our own people that America is not such a noble country after all, a sentiment with which I entirely disagree, This sentiment is fanned by the left in our society. Who am I talking about? How about Hollywood, the universities, the mainstream news media, many figures in the Democratic Party and the other assorted activist organizations?
    In the universities (I teach part-time at the University of California at Irvine) and also now in high schools, we see a left-wing agenda being propagated by teachers and professors, many of whom came of age as students during the volatile 60s. Many of these professors now see their job as teaching their students about all the faults of America-racism, sexism, imperialism, homophobia, Islamophobia and so on. They use their classroom platform to rail against people like President Bush, the Republican Party and conservatives in general. Many of their students, inspired and egged on by their professors, engage in various disruptive campus protests against anything and anyone they disagree with, in many cases, not letting speaking events go on. Radical leftists can walk around and speak freely on campuses, but any conservative speakers need bodyguards.
    Hollywood is another interesting example. During World War 2, Hollywood actually participated in the war effort, producing movies that reinforced the public’s knowledge that we were the good guys and Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were the bad guys. That actually spilled partially over into the Viet Nam War. During the earlier stages of our involvement, John Wayne ( a patriot) starred in The Green Berets, a pro-American movie that carried on the tradition of the movies of World War 2 (and the Korean War as well). But as attitudes changed toward Viet Nam, Hollywood changed as well. Most Viet Nam War movies that have been produced since then have portrayed soldiers and Marines as being drug-using, psycotic misfits betrayed by their generals and the politicians in Washington who sent them there. Witness movies like Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon and many others. Today, movies about current conflicts take a position that we are fighting misguided wars, and treat the whole Islamic terror issue with kid gloves out of political correctness.
    As for our mainstream media, they, like the universities, are almost entirely in the hands of the left-to the point that they are now editorializing under the guise of reporting. They are actually a wing of the Democratic Party. Who am I talking about? I am referring to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle and too many other newspapers to list here. Only Fox News and talk radio can give the public any conservative thought.
    When I was growing up, the Democratic Party was not dramatically different from the Republican Party. Both were fairly conservative and both were Cold Warriors. I guess it started to change during the 1960s, with the division and bitterness brought on by the Viet Nam War. Today, they do have some similarities in the area of corruption, love of power and pork-barrel spending of the public’s money. Philosophically, however, there are deep differences. The Democrats have, with few exceptions, drifted solidly to the left with a more socialistic world view. The Republicans have stood for conservatism, on which in many cases they have compromised in recent years. Currently, members of the two parties can barely speak to each other, much less get anything done in Congress (perhaps a good thing?) It alarms me, however, to see how the Democrats cannot even support the president when it comes to our national defense. They don’t want any eavesdropping on suspected terrorists without a court order. They want Guantanemo closed down and captured terrorists afforded federal trials with attorneys and all the other rights of criminal defendants. They don’t want us to win in Iraq-just pull out- no matter the consequences. Meanwhile, politicians and government leaders on both sides of the aisle continue to bicker and fiddle while the country burns. It is disgraceful, but look at most of the characters we have in Washington and state and local offices around the country. Their one common attribute is ambition and little else. Meanwhile, our youth witness how many of our leaders act. If it’s not Mark Foley chasing young pages around Washington, it’s Bill Clinton turning the White House into a bordello, committing perjury and somehow remaining in office. If it’s not William Jefferson caught on tape accepting a $100,000 bribe from the FBI, it’s Larry Craig being busted in an airport men’s room for solicitation of sex.
    All of this is having an effect on the public, which is badly divided by left and right, forgetting in the process, that we are all threatened by the same enemy. Many people in our society are now starting to accept the idea that 9-11 was an inside job carried out by the Bush Administration to provide an excuse to start wars for oil. That itself is a scary idea that so many people could believe that. But consider that there is a University of Wisconsin professor who is pushing that very position. That is a prime example of how our youth are being educated today. They are not taught the essentials that my generation and my father’s generation was taught. Rather they are taught all the historical errors of their country. Now we have a whole generation of young, college-educated people who cannot find the Middle East on a map, but can wax eloquent about gay issues. Sadly, it doesn’t take a grade school dropout to swallow the notion that 9-11 was Bush’s doing.
    Along those same lines, it seems we have raised a whole generation of Americans who have not learned the fact that our freedom has come at a price. They take it for granted and have bought into the notion that they are entitled to everything. Some feel that way out of a sense of victimization; others simply out of a sense of entitlement. Sacrifice, public service and responsibility have gone out the window. It amazes me that in the midst of all this, we have still managed to produce those marvelous young men and women who are willing to wear the uniform of our country and put their lives on the line. They are the very best that our society has to offer. Yet, they get no respect from certain institutions like the universities.
    Another factor which must be considered is the coursening of our culture. When did it become ok to sell pornography openly in stores or on the Internet? When did it become commonplace to see convicted child rapists (a rampant phenomenom in America) given probation or light sentences of say, one year, which happens with regularity in states like Vermont and Massachusetts? When did we get the notion that we no longer had the sovereign right to control our borders and decide who may enter our country? When did it become commonplace for hip-hop artists to perform “songs” about violence, rape and killing cops, using a stream of 4-letter words in the process? (In my lifetime, I have witnessed the slow death of one of our great American art forms; black music with actual singing and musical instruments.) When did it become acceptable for a university newspaper (Colorado State University) to display a headline reading-“F— Bush!”? When did it become acceptable for a high school to invite speakers to explain to a (mandatory) student assembly that unprotected sex and drug experimentation were good ideas to be encouraged? (Boulder High School in Colorado-2007) Maybe, just maybe, it started when we legalized abortion. Since then, babies by the millions have been terminated as a choice. Maybe that was when we lost our soul as a people.
    But how easy it is to lose one’s soul when God has been driven from the public arena. Now any reference to God is open to attack. The result? We are now starting to emulate the Europeans, who are so proud of the secularization of their societies that ancient churches and cathedrals over there are now little more than museums for tourists. Enter one today and you only see other tourists- no services going on-maybe an old priest walking around a lighting candles. I hope the Europeans enjoy their secularization while it lasts. In another two generations, with present demographic trends, Europe will be majority Muslim-but it will not be secular.
    So today, Christians and their faith are under constant attack. Jews are also under attack for their perceived allegiance to Israel; thus, we see anti-Semitic speeches on college campuses, in many cases, by Muslim speakers invited by the Muslim Students Unions. Such is the case at my school-UC Irvine. Meanwhile, university leaders (like ours) wring their hands and talk about freedom of speech being paramount while calling any criticism of these hate-filled speakers as Islamophobia, a moral equivalent of the anti-Semitic speeches themselves. The bottom line is that while our own majority religion ( and that of our Jewish citizens) is being attacked from the left, Islam, with all of its intolerance and violent elements, is being cowtowed to by that very same left.
    During the Cold War, one of the goals of the communists was to undermine us from within. Destroy Americans’ faith in the country. Do away with religion and its values. Bring down the American economy and all our other advantages over other nations. Make America into just another nation among equals. Divide public opinion. They would be proud today at what has been happening here. Ever wonder what happened to all the American communists and sympathizers when the Soviet Union collapsed and Eastern Europe threw off Communism? They couldn’t still proclaim themselves Communists and preach Communism as the ultimate answer lest they be laughed out the country. Where did they go? What are they doing now to help speed up the rotting away of our society and our power? There may be some clues in what I have written above.
    So in my opinion, could America collapse from within due to our deep divisions? Absolutely, and I think there is a small but very vocal and active element in our society working to that very end. It is up to us to stand up for our country and our traditional values while at the same time, somehow, come together again. In this essay, I have written from an obviously conservative view, criticizing liberals. My essay is, in fact, divisive because I strongly believe that conservatism must prevail in this country. That in itself shows that our coming together will not be easy.
    gary fouse
    fousesquawk

Comments are closed.