you talk a great deal about lying and have accused the left of 'lazy intellectualism' and yet so far you - and others - have failed to give any substantial weight to those claims in regard to the the core argument that has been put forward here. exactly which part of clinton's defense is a lie draginol?

well, ya see the nonsense i had to deal with from puppy when i tried to get some actual evidence. they just claim "clinton is lying" and move back to personal attack mode.

you are just another bully behind a keyboard...and now ya got someone who can kick your ass with facts and it's driving you nuts, i've dealt with your ilk for decades, not only online , but more often in person...quick island dog, scan all my posts and look for some lil tidbit you can nitpick as if it matters.

Very doubtful.

well, ya see the nonsense i had to deal with from puppy when i tried to get some actual evidence. they just claim "clinton is lying" and move back to personal attack mode.

Something you never do right? Another hypocrit on the boards.

perhaps then, seanconners, since the issue of media bias is such a salient feature in many of the responses in this thread, it might be more productive for clinton's critics to produce evidence that foxnews has ever directly asked any of the bush administration as to why they failed to do anything about the bombing of the uss cole. or, why they demoted richard clarke reknown for his experience in anti-terrorism. or indeed, why they themselves failed to engage in an anti-terrorist strategy during the 8 months prior to 9/11.

you however, as with emily, have chosen a straw argument by focusing on whether the neocons were obsessed with his going after bin laden. the fact that some republicans supported clintons efforts does not mean therefore that some also didn't. this is hardly a lie on clinton's part. subjective experience perhaps. ultimately it remains a debatable point. not one based in fact. moreover, in the context of the greater argument, it is of little consequence.

Can you name ONE Republican who claimed Clinton was "obsessed" with getting Bin Laden.

Clinton made a bunch of claims that were untrue. This was the one that really stuck out to me.

and as i have already noted draginol, clinton's use of the word 'obsessed is obviously subjectively based upon his experience at the time and hardly relevant to the crux of that interview or this argument. moreover, that there is a denial that conservative's were opposed to his military action at the time has effectively been exposed by salon magazine:

www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/09/25/clinton_2/index.html

you yourself however continue to pedantically assert that clinton has made 'numerous blatantly false statements' and a 'bunch of claims that were not true'. what exactly are those false statements and claims draginol? your consistent inability to address the core issue of this thread other than unsubstantiated claims can but only leave one with the impression that not only are you intellectually lazy, but a hypocrite as well. now why does that feel like deja vu.

Most of this is conservative backpedaling as Mr. Bush sinks their party boat.

Find a member of either party who will STFU and take responsibility for ANYTHING. Katrina, Bin Ladin, Enron, and whatever else hides in the light of day.

So much identity tied up into your parties that the truth takes a backseat to membership.

Find a member of either party who will STFU and take responsibility for ANYTHING. Katrina, Bin Ladin, Enron, and whatever else hides in the light of day.

Enron had nothing to do with the republican party. What is there for them to take responsibility for?

"I did not have sex with Bin Laden"~ Bill Clinton, Fox News. ;~D

'Can you name ONE Republican who claimed Clinton was "obsessed" with getting Bin Laden.' draginol.

www.al-bab.com/yemen/artic/mei72.htm

it would appear there is one less 'blatantly false statement' and the subjective has become fact. which is nice, non?

it would appear there is one less 'blatantly false statement' and the subjective has become fact. which is nice, non?

Uh, your link and the quoted statement do not go together.  Would you care to take another shot at debunking Draginol?

'Uh, your link and the quoted statement do not go together. Would you care to take another shot at debunking Draginol?' dr guy.

au contraire dr guy i do need to take another shot at debunking draginol, when my previous reply (salon.com) explicitly shows that that there was considerable republican opposition towards clinton's military actions - in marked contrast to the recent revisionism that that post points out.

the robert oakley quote simply gives further indication that clinton's own claim has some basis in fact and is quite patently not a 'blatantly false statement', as has been asserted. to maintain a specificity of distinction is simply to miss the point of the argument and not a little anal retentive. which is perhaps why draginol did not respond himself.

au contraire dr guy i do need to take another shot at debunking draginol, when my previous reply (salon.com) explicitly shows that that there was considerable republican opposition towards clinton's military actions - in marked contrast to the recent revisionism that that post points out.

No it does not.  Perhaps you need a definition of parties?  That shows nothing about elected republicans.  Again, debate the point, not your opinion.

It also says nothing about Clinton being "obsessed" with getting Bin Laden.  It's just nonsense. He wasn't obsessed.

There was some grumbling -- in the media -- that Clinton's choice to lob missiles into Afghanistan just happened to be on the same day he was scheduled to testify about Lewinski.

So I ask again - name a single elected official from the Republican party that claimed Clinton was obsessed with Bin Laden.

 

'Can you name ONE Republican who claimed Clinton was "obsessed" with getting Bin Laden.' draginol. www.al-bab.com/yemen/artic/mei72.htm it would appear there is one less 'blatantly false statement' and the subjective has become fact. which is nice, non

Clarke a republican? If so, in name only. Read this

Link