Finally, the guards just want to find out what this guy’s deal is so one asks, “Why do you keep asking for President Clinton when we keep telling you he’s not president anymore?”
The guy answers, “I just like hearing you say that.”

There is documented evidence that Clinton left a comprehensive plan for the Bush administration.

In that interview, Clark was lying or misinformed.

Yehuda

And, while I may have spent too many words on it, the conjecture that Bush force Clarke to lie is actually a small part of my point. The major thrust — Clarke own testimony, given the same day as that story ran, directly contradicts that story. In other words, given two different stories, both from the mouth of Richard Clarke, you ran the one that was neither under oath nor supported by documentation, when the other one had both. We’ll concede that this was probably a case of insufficent research rather that a deliberate attempt to skew the story.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that while you may have attempted to present a neutral point of view, you failed on that level, and I was just trying to correct the matter.

I have tried to present a neutral point of view. Unfortunately, you have jumped in with a clearly one-sided agenda. Thus it is difficult for me to buy it.

If you are trying to prove that Clinton is that rare politician that does not lie – save yourself the effort.

people keep saying, “Bushies keep trying to blame everything on Clinton.” Which is untrue.

Depends how you define “Bushies”. Everyone in the Bush administration has been very careful to avoid saying that directly — they just suggested it — exactly as they very carefully avoided saying (but strongly suggested) that Iraq had ties to al Quida.

However, the right-wing echo chamber (Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter/O’Reilly/etc) have stated it regularly.

It’s just that Clinton keeps saying untrue things

As I’ve shown in my above message, Clinton was actually telling the truth in the Wallace interview.
But, beyond that, can you show one example when Clinton was shown to have lied — on a Presidental (not personal) matter? (I can cite many examples on Bush lying about policy matters)

when you try to correct it, you’re “attacking him”.
Wait — You’re accusing the LEFT of this???? Have you been asleep the last 20 years ??? That space is totally owned by the Right, who if you correct them, accuse you of attacking the president, being unpatriotic, being a facsist, being niave, and/or being a nazi appeaser (and that’s just the last three months)

circumvented a law that Gore had sponsored while a senator.

And if you are bothered by Presidental Signing Statements (the questionably legal means that presidents says “I’m not going to enforce this law”), you should note that Clinton wrote 105 of them in his 8 years, while Bush-41 wrote 146 in his 4 years and Bush-43 has written over 750 so far in his 6 years.

The article you cite was from August 2002 (when Clarke was still working for Bush), and was re-released by the Bush administration (& gracious re-printed, as 18 month old “news”, by FOX), in March 24 of 2004, just a few weeks about the 9-11 commission published it’s report, in fact, on the very day that Clarke testified, under oath, before the commission.

So, what did the 9-11 Commission say on the matter?
P. 201: “Clarke submitted an elaborate memorandum on January 25, 2001. He attached to it his 1998 Delenda Plan and the December 2000 strategy paper. “We _urgently_ need … a Principals level review on the al Qida network”

Things to note:
– “January 25 2001” was 5 days into the Bush administration.
– “December 2000” was just a few weeks earlier, as the transition was already started, so clearly the paper was written to turn over to the Bush administration.
– The word “urgently” is underlined and in italics in Clarke’s original memo.
– The commission has the documentation to back up those statements.
– The meeting that Clarke “urgently” (underline, italics) requested finally took place on September 4th, over 7 months later.
– Clarke’s actual
testimony (warning:PDF; scroll down to page 5) to the commission confirms the essence of that.

So, it would seem that, after 9/11, when Bush was desparate to point the finger anywhere but his own mismanagement, sent Clarke out to lie about the warnings given. Then when Clarke ceased being on Bush’s payroll, he came clean and ‘fessed up. And, as Clarke was about to tell the truth — live on TV and under oath — the Bushies drag over the old lie to try to confuse the issue.

I dealt with that throughout the 90s. I’m a Clinton-hater and have been since I first heard, “I didn’t inhale.” That absolutely insulted my intelligence. But I can point to actual things he has been shown to have done and/or admitting to having dome them. I don’t accuse him of murder, rape or any of the other red-herrings that I kept getting accused of accusing him about.
For instance, as to “I didn’t inhale.” I think that’s a lie. But… If it isn’t, that’s just as bad or worse. It means that he was too much of a wimp to tell his friends he didn’t want to smoke pot. Either way, it meant he was not ready to be President.
I was angry over him having Al Gore make the deal with Chernomyrdin that circumvented a law that Gore had sponsored while a senator. I also got sick and tired of Janet Reno ignoring many blatant illegalities, like Gore’s Buddhist temple deal, “No controlling legal authority” indeed.

Seeing Clinton on Sunday, wagging his finger and getting all angry while lying his butt off really ticked me off as it brought me back to the worst of the 90s.
To quote Bob Dole, “Where’s the outrage?”
Directed at me for pointing out he’s a lying sack of…

What’s interesting is to contrast Clinton’s reaction to criticism vs. Bush’s reaction to YEARS of harsh criticism. Democrats sure can dish it out but they sure can’t take it, can they?

Robert