thought id post this thread to anyone who has proof that are contrary to what Clinton said on Fox Sunday.. which seems to be the political hotbed right now.

CLINTON ON RICHARD CLARK

He has a variety of opinion and loyalties now, but let's look at the facts: He worked for Ronald Reagan; he was loyal to him. He worked for George H. W. Bush; he was loyal to him. He worked for me, and he was loyal to me. He worked for President Bush; he was loyal to him.

They downgraded him and the terrorist operation.


So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted.

...I want to know how many you asked, "Why did you fire Dick Clarke?"



They never downgraded him or fired him.. Clark resigned.. Thats a lie

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0323042clarke1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

CLINTON ON A "STRATEGY" TO COMBAT TERRORISM/AL QUEDA

No, no. I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him.
The CIA, which was run by George Tenet, that President Bush gave the Medal of Freedom to, he said, "He did a good job setting up all these counterterrorism things."

The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came there.

Now, if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: After the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden.

But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried.

The Clinton plan, Time reported, was drawn up after the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole. In the wake of that bombing, Time said, White House anti-terror chief Richard Clarke put together “an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda.” Clarke reportedly wanted to break up al Qaeda cells, cut off their funding, destroy their sanctuaries, and give major support to the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. In addition, Time reported, “the U.S. military would start planning for air strikes on the camps and for the introduction of special-operations forces into Afghanistan.” It was, in the words of a senior Bush administration official quoted by Time, “everything we’ve done since 9/11.”

Time said Clarke presented the “strategy paper” to national-security adviser Sandy Berger on December 20, 2000, but Berger decided not to act on it. “We would be handing [the Bush administration] a war when they took office,” Time quoted an unnamed former Clinton aide saying. “That wasn’t ugoing to happen.” Instead, Berger — who is portrayed as a tough-talking hardliner on terrorism — urged Rice, the incoming national-security adviser, to take action. But the new administration didn’t follow that good advice. The Clinton proposals, Time reported, “became a victim of the transition process, turf wars and time spent on the pet policies of new top officials.”

So hear we have what was originally reported by Time magazine.. Clinton devising a plan, and Clark and Berger acting on it.... but some people were confused:

After the article appeared, National Review talked to Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss, who was then a member of the House, chairing the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. Chambliss was perplexed. “I’ve had Dick Clarke testify before our committee several times, and we’ve invited Samuel Berger several times,” Chambliss told NR, “and this is the first I’ve ever heard of that plan.” If it was such a big deal, Chambliss wondered, why didn’t anyone mention it?

Sources at the White House were just as baffled. At the time, they were carefully avoiding picking public fights with the previous administration over the terrorism issue. But privately, they told NR that the Time report was way off base. “There was no new plan to topple al Qaeda,” one source said flatly. “No new plan.” When asked if there was, perhaps, an old plan to topple al Qaeda, which might have been confused in the Time story, the source said simply, “No.”

Those are just random examples i know... but here is when it gets juicy:

Finally, Richard Clarke himself debunked the story in a background briefing with reporters. He said he presented two things to the incoming Bush administration: “One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to any new conclusions from ‘98 on.”

A reporter asked: “Were all of those issues part of an alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to — ”

Bill Clinton's OWN "homey" Richard Clark says:

CLARK:“There was never a plan, Andrea,” Clarke answered. “What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.”

“So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARK:“There was no new plan.”

“No new strategy? I mean, I mean, I don’t want to get into a semantics — “

CLARK:“Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.”

“Had those issues evolved at all from October of ‘98 until December of 2000?”

CLARK:“Had they evolved? Not appreciably.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjZmOTBmNjA0ZGFmMGY4ZjM5ZGY1M2IzMWQ4MTBmMTY=

So while Clinton is trying to paint this picture that he left Bush some GREAT strategy to get Bin Ladin and Al Queda... Clark verifies that Clinton is misleading or a flat out liar.. one of the two...

All I'm saying is, you falsely accused me of giving aid and comfort to bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia. No one knew Al Qaeda existed then. And ...

NOONE knew about Al Qaeda??? Thats just a lie by word use alone.

Now, I've never criticized President Bush

LMAO do i even need to say anything?

WALLACE: I want to ask a question. You don't think that's a legitimate question?
CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question, but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of.

Why is clinton changing the subject?

MORE TO COME i G2G!

:lolhit: Fish'in with no bait, eh

CLARK: “There was never a plan, Andrea,”
CLARK:“There was no new plan.”
Those are good Decka. I forgot about them.

:lolhit: Fish'in with no bait, eh
How do you figure? Seems fairly compelling to me.

They never downgraded him or fired him.. Clark resignedThey demoted him, forcing him to resign. Duh.If it was such a big deal, Chambliss wondered, why didn’t anyone mention it?
Partisan poppycock, nothing more. Chambliss was probably too busy Blackberrying the young Senate page-boys with obscene lecherous emails.

When and if Clinton ever lies on Fox Propaganda Network, THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS WON'T DIE. Big difference. Much bigger news is the new Woodward book which states CIA Director George Tenet and counterterrorism head Cofer Black had a clear shot at Bin Laden BEFORE 9/11, urged a preemptive strike and got a "brush-off" from Condi Rice. Figures. I sure Fox Apologist Network will put their best spin doctors on that one.

Most obvious 10 ton elephant in the discussion room is that 5 years after the largest security lapse since Pearl Harbor the guy who did it is STILL ALIVE and although Bush would love to pin the blame on someone, there's really no one to blame other than his own stinking sorry appointees and his own incompetent ass. Note to W: four years after Pearl Harbor the Japanese were standing on the deck of the Missouri signing an unconditional surrender. Five years after 9/11 and it's evidently up the the next Predident to bring OBL to justtice. Disgraceful.

thought id post this thread to anyone who has proof that are contrary to what Clinton said on Fox Sunday.. which seems to be the political hotbed right now.

CLINTON ON RICHARD CLARK



They never downgraded him or fired him.. Clark resigned.. Thats a lie

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0323042clarke1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._ClarkeI already demolished this one in the other thread.CLINTON ON A "STRATEGY" TO COMBAT TERRORISM/AL QUEDA







So hear we have what was originally reported by Time magazine.. Clinton devising a plan, and Clark and Berger acting on it.... but some people were confused:

After the article appeared, National Review talked to Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss, who was then a member of the House, chairing the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. Chambliss was perplexed. “I’ve had Dick Clarke testify before our committee several times, and we’ve invited Samuel Berger several times,” Chambliss told NR, “and this is the first I’ve ever heard of that plan.” If it was such a big deal, Chambliss wondered, why didn’t anyone mention it?

Sources at the White House were just as baffled. At the time, they were carefully avoiding picking public fights with the previous administration over the terrorism issue. But privately, they told NR that the Time report was way off base. “There was no new plan to topple al Qaeda,” one source said flatly. “No new plan.” When asked if there was, perhaps, an old plan to topple al Qaeda, which might have been confused in the Time story, the source said simply, “No.”

Those are just random examples i know... but here is when it gets juicy:

Finally, Richard Clarke himself debunked the story in a background briefing with reporters. He said he presented two things to the incoming Bush administration: “One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to any new conclusions from ‘98 on.”

A reporter asked: “Were all of those issues part of an alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to — ”

Bill Clinton's OWN "homey" Richard Clark says:

CLARK:“There was never a plan, Andrea,” Clarke answered. “What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.”

“So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARK:“There was no new plan.”

“No new strategy? I mean, I mean, I don’t want to get into a semantics — “

CLARK:“Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.”

“Had those issues evolved at all from October of ‘98 until December of 2000?”

CLARK:“Had they evolved? Not appreciably.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjZmOTBmNjA0ZGFmMGY4ZjM5ZGY1M2IzMWQ4MTBmMTY=

So while Clinton is trying to paint this picture that he left Bush some GREAT strategy to get Bin Ladin and Al Queda... Clark verifies that Clinton is misleading or a flat out liar.. one of the two...What's your point? Clarke is saying that there was an existing strategy -- just as Clinton stated in the interview. There wasn't a 'new' plan because Clarke had already formulated it in 1998. Here follows some of Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 Commission 24 March 2004:

MR. ROEMER: Okay. Let's move into, with my 15 minutes, let's move into the Bush administration. On January the 25th, we've seen a memo that you had written to Dr. Rice, urgently asking for a principals review of al Qaeda. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new '02 budget authority to help fight al Qaeda --

MR. CLARKE: Uh-huh.

MR. ROEMER: -- and response to the U.S.S. Cole. You attached to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000. Did you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these, and how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?

MR. CLARKE: I did get a response. The response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, the counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-cabinet level committee, and not to the principals, and that therefore it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

MR. ROEMER: So, does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group, as you had previously done?

MR. CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn't meet urgently in January or February. Then, when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of al Qaeda as part of a cluster of policy issues, including nuclear proliferation in South Asia, democratization in Pakistan, how to treat the problems, the various problems, including narcotics and other problems in Afghanistan , and, launched on a series of deputies meetings extending over several months to address al Qaeda in the context of all of those interrelated issues. That process probably ended, I think, in July of 2001, so we were readying for a principals meeting in July, but the principals' calendar was full, and then they went on vacation, many of them, in August, so we couldn't meet in August, and therefore the principals met in September.

MR. ROEMER: So, as the Bush administration is carefully considering from bottom up a full review of fighting terrorism, what happens to these individual items, like a response to the U.S.S. Cole --

MR. CLARKE: Well --

MR. ROEMER: -- like the Predator? Why aren't these decided in the shorter time frame as they're also going through a larger policy review of how this policy affects Pakistan and other countries -- important considerations, but why can't you do both?

MR. CLARKE: The deputies committee, its chairman, Mr. Hadley, and others, thought that all these issues were sufficiently interrelated, that they should be taken up as a set of issues, and pieces of them should not be broken off.

MR. ROEMER: Did you agree with that?

MR. CLARKE: No, I didn't agree with much of that.

MR. ROEMER: Were you -- were you frustrated by this process?

MR. CLARKE: I was sufficiently frustrated that I asked to be reassigned.

MR. ROEMER: When was this?

MR. CLARKE: Probably May or June -- certainly no later than June. And there was agreement in that time frame, in the May or June time frame, that I would be -- my request would be honored and I would be reassigned on the first of October to a new position to deal with cyber security, a position that I requested be created.

MR. ROEMER: So, are you saying that the frustration got to a high enough level that it wasn't your portfolio; it wasn't doing a lot of things at the same time. It was that you weren't getting fast enough action on what you were requesting?

MR. CLARKE: That's right. My view was that this Administration, while it listened to me, either didn't believe me that there was an urgent problem or was unprepared to act as though there were an urgent problem.

And I thought, if the Administration doesn't believe its national coordinator for counterterrorism when he says there's an urgent problem, and if it's unprepared to act as though there's an urgent problem, then probably I should get another job.

I thought cyber-security was and I still think cyber-security is an extraordinarily important issue for which this country is very underprepared. And I thought perhaps I could make a contribution if I worked full-time on that issue.

MR. ROEMER: You then write a letter or a memo on September the 4th to Dr. Rice expressing some of these frustrations. Several months later, if you say the time frame is May or June when you decided to resign, a memo comes out that we have seen on September the 4th.

You are blunt in blasting DOD for not willingly using the force and the power. You blast the CIA for blocking Predator. You urge policymakers to imagine a day, after hundreds of Americans lay dead at home and abroad after a terrorist attack, and ask themselves what else they could have done. You write this on September the 4th, seven days before September 11th.

MR. CLARKE: That's right.

MR. ROEMER: What else could have been done, Mr. Clarke?

MR. CLARKE: Well, all of the things that we recommended in the plan or strategy -- there's a lot of debate about whether it's a plan or a strategy or a series of options -- but all of the things we recommended back in January were those things on the table in September. They were done. They were done after September 11th. They were all done. I didn't really understand why they couldn't have been done in February.

MR. ROEMER: Well, let's say, Mr. Clarke -- I think this is a fair question -- let's say that you asked to brief the President of the United States on counterterrorism. Did you ask that?

MR. CLARKE: I asked for a series of briefings on the issues in my portfolio, including counterterrorism and cyber-security.

MR. ROEMER: Did you get that request?

MR. CLARKE: I did. I was given a briefing opportunity to brief on cyber-security in June. I was told I could brief the President on terrorism after this policy development process was complete. And we had a principals meeting and a draft national security policy decision that had been approved by the deputies committee.

MR. ROEMER: Let's say, Mr. Clarke, as gifted as you might be in eloquence and silver-tongued as anyone could be, and let's say, let's imagine, that instead of saying no, you asked for this briefing to the President, you said you didn't get it after eight months of talking -- let's say you get this briefing in February, after your memo to Dr. Rice on September the 25th, and you meet with the President of the United States in February and you brief him on terrorism.

Tell me how you convince the President to move forward on this and get this principals meeting that doesn't take place until September the 4th moved up so that you can do something about this problem?

MR. CLARKE: Well, I think the best thing to have done, if there had been a meeting with the President in February, was to show him the accumulated intelligence that al Qaeda was strong and was planning attacks against the United States, against friendly governments.

It was possible to make a very persuasive case that this was a major threat and this was an urgent problem.

MR. ROEMER: And you think this would have sped up the deputies process and the principals process? Do you think the President would have reached down then and said something to the national security team to --

MR. CLARKE: I don't know.

MR. ROEMER: -- expedite this?

MR. CLARKE: I don't know.

MR. ROEMER: Well, you worked for President Clinton. You saw what meetings with presidents could do there. Is this a magical solution, or is it something that presidents might say right back to you, "Listen, Dick, I've got many other things I've got to do here -- the Middle East peace process, Bosnia, Kosovo, the Korean peninsula." How likely is it that we are able to see some kind of result from a meeting like that?

MR. CLARKE: I think it depends in part on the President. President Bush was regularly told by the director of Central Intelligence that there was an urgent threat. On one occasion -- he was told this dozens of times in the morning briefings that George Tenet gave him. On one of those occasions, he asked for a strategy to deal with the threat.

Condi Rice came back from that meeting, called me and relayed what the President had requested. And I said, "Well, you know, we've had this strategy ready since before you were inaugurated. I showed it to you. You have the paperwork. We can have a meeting on the strategy any time you want."

She said she would look into it. Her looking into it and the President asking for it did not change the pace at which it was considered. And as far as I know, the President never asked again. At least I was never informed that he asked again. I do know he was thereafter continually informed about the threat by George Tenet.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing8/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-03-24.htm

Did Clinton lie?

Of course Clinton lied. His entire life is built on one lie after another. Bill Clinton is the consumate bully politician. Truth and he are strangers.

Whah whah whah whah whah whah.


Yatta yatta yatta yatta.


Whah whah whah whah whah WHAH.


Blah blah blah blah blah.


Whah whah whah whah whah, you freaking jerk.

Oh yeah? You and what Army??


Whah whah whah whah whah2. Sparky and Frogger say that Clinton was a lying scumbag, and that is that.

No shit? Well, if Sparky and Frogger said it, it must be true.
:thumbs:

Did Clinton lie?


Yes.

He lied.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Clinton lied about getting some tail.

Number of Americans who died because of Clinton's lie --------- 0.

Bush lied about the reasons for a war. Bush lied this nation into a needless, ill-conceived, illegal pre-emptive war. A war that is a disaster.

Number of Americans who died because of Bush's lies --------- 2700. (and counting)

Yet we STLL have to sit here and listen to fucking holier-than-thou Rightwingers puling about "Well, sniff sniff, B..b..b..b..but, Bill Clinton liiiiiiiiiied about sex....WAAAAAAAH!!!"

Of course Clinton lied. His entire life is built on one lie after another. Bill Clinton is the consumate bully politician. Truth and he are strangers. Like all politicians. You you really think its otherwise you need to have your head examined.

Oh and everything is going great in Iraq...

Like all politicians.

You you really think its otherwise you need to have your head examined.

exactly.. i agree 100%...

Oh and everything is going great in Iraq...

but you can't prove it was Bush lying and manipulating in order to go to war... he could have just THOUGHT Iraq had WMD's, had lots of other people who "had his back".. then went to war cause Saddam was acting suspiciously like he HAD something and by the way was harboring terrorists(even if he wasn't "in" on the 9-11 thing).. and then found out that Saddam was full of shit or very smart and moved all of his stash.. and then when Bush turns around.. everyone who "had his back" i.e. the Gores, Kerrys, Clintons.. all bailed and were then ripping Bush a new asshole for what he did....

It could have been all innocent.. i agree there is a reason to suspect that Bush might have lied into war.. pretty much the only reason is for oil.. but that cant be proven.. its a theory.. and dont forget to call it that. The FT's and yourself 500 keep refering to it as fact... well you sure have a funny definition of the word "fact".. And while you might laugh at the notion that Bush might be "innocent".. funny how you are on the Clinton bandwagon about how HE is supposedly "innocent" of any wrongdoing.. I havnt heard a single criticism of his testimony on the FOX news sunday thing.. do you think he was telling the truth 100%? or do you not care and only like the fact that someone was an asshole to Fox?

Oh and by the way... You are dumb.. thats a "fact" LOL.:lolhit:

Oh and Sedan.. i thought Clinton said the plan was made after the U.S.S. Cole was attacked... and Clark's quote verified that there wasn't a "new" plan.

I dont doubt there was a plan back in 1998.. but Clinton pretty much said he made a big plan for Bush on his last days... and Bush was an idiot for not following it.

Now clinton looks kind of dumb because he had the plan since 1998 and didnt follow his own stuff.. and then he has the lack of intellect to blame bush for not acting on it? Why didnt YOU do anything Bill????? You had 2 years... Bush had less then a year... hmmmm

im not saying Either is cleared of blame.. but if you were to look at who was MORE to blame.. it seems its clinton.. and he's desperately, and i mean DESPERATELY.. trying to pass the buck to Bush... heh, ol Bill really cares about how he looks in the history books...

Oh and Sedan.. i thought Clinton said the plan was made after the U.S.S. Cole was attacked... and Clark's quote verified that there wasn't a "new" plan.Why don't you look at what Clinton actually said?

But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried. So, I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted.

He doesn't say when the plan was made. What happpened is that Clarke took his 1998 plan, tweaked it a bit, and presented it first to Berger and then to Rice, neither of whom tried to push it (Berger at least had the excuse of the transition going on and said he didn't want to hand off a war).I dont doubt there was a plan back in 1998.. but Clinton pretty much said he made a big plan for Bush on his last days... and Bush was an idiot for not following it.Well, there was a plan and Bush didn't follow it. You'll have to decide for yourself if that makes him an idiot.Now clinton looks kind of dumb because he had the plan since 1998 and didnt follow his own stuff.. and then he has the lack of intellect to blame bush for not acting on it? Why didnt YOU do anything Bill????? You had 2 years... Bush had less then a year... hmmmmAgreed. The thing is, Clinton admits that he failed and regrets not killing bin Laden when he had the chance.im not saying Either is cleared of blame.. but if you were to look at who was MORE to blame.. it seems its clinton.. and he's desperately, and i mean DESPERATELY.. trying to pass the buck to Bush... heh, ol Bill really cares about how he looks in the history books...I don't think admitting failure is in any way passing the buck but I would agree that there's plenty of blame to go around. What you evidently don't see is that a carefully orchestrated media campaign has been employed by the right to shift all the blame onto Clinton (just in time for the November elections). He finally got fed up with it and that's why you saw so much anger from him in the interview.

Yes. He lied. ~~~~~~

Clinton lied about getting some tail.

Number of Americans who died because of Clinton's lie --------- 0.

Bush lied about the reasons for a war. Bush lied this nation into a needless, ill-conceived, illegal pre-emptive war. A war that is a disaster.

Number of Americans who died because of Bush's lies --------- 2700. (and counting)

Yet we STLL have to sit here and listen to fucking holier-than-thou Rightwingers puling about "Well, sniff sniff, B..b..b..b..but, Bill Clinton liiiiiiiiiied about sex....WAAAAAAAH!!!"

It isn't about the sex, and you know it.
It's about the integrity of the office, and the integrity of the man who would presume to act as Commander in Chief.

Clinton lied to the American people, and then later changed his story only when the irrefutable DNA evidence was about to prove him a liar.
That he lied is not a subject for debate.

Bush didn't lie this nation into a war, he led this nation into a war. And the notion that he lied about the reasons for the war (and cooked up false WMD evidence) is a ridiculous presumption and a tired rumor. There is no proof or admission that he lied, there is only the anti-Bush/anti-war lunatic fringe insinuations that he lied. And that fantasy grows by leaps and bounds by the day, fed by the fuel of purposeful misinformation on web-blogs all around the globe.

That Bush lied is true for you, friend Freethinker.
It's true for you because you want it to be true.
Heck, your whole identity (proudly-demonstrated, on a number of occasions) is anti-war/anti-Bush. You desperately need for it to be true.

Without this fervent belief in such a dark notion, you've got no foundation for your anger and hatred. Without the fantasy that Bush lied, you've go nowhere else to hang all this animosity.
You're committed to it.

Well good luck with all that, sir.
I sure hope your kids grow up healthy and sane, and aren’t affected by all this bitterness.

That Bush lied is true for you, friend Freethinker.
It's true for you because you want it to be true.
Heck, your whole identity (proudly-demonstrated, on a number of occasions) is anti-war/anti-Bush. You desperately need for it to be true.

Without this fervent belief in such a dark notion, you've got no foundation for your anger and hatred. Without the fantasy that Bush lied, you've go nowhere else to hang all this animosity.
You're committed to it.

Well good luck with all that, sir.
I sure hope your kids grow up healthy and sane, and aren’t affected by all this bitterness.
Bingo.

It still has not bee proven that Bush lied about WMD's.

The intelligenc was bad. You know as well as I know that Japan, Britan, France, Kerry, Edwards all said that Uncle Saddam had WMD's.



Yes.

He lied.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Clinton lied about getting some tail.

Number of Americans who died because of Clinton's lie --------- 0.

Bush lied about the reasons for a war. Bush lied this nation into a needless, ill-conceived, illegal pre-emptive war. A war that is a disaster.

Number of Americans who died because of Bush's lies --------- 2700. (and counting)

Yet we STLL have to sit here and listen to fucking holier-than-thou Rightwingers puling about "Well, sniff sniff, B..b..b..b..but, Bill Clinton liiiiiiiiiied about sex....WAAAAAAAH!!!"

Number of Americans who died because of Clinton's lie --------- 0.

Number of Americans who lost faith in that President over those lies --- untold millions.

Number of Americans who died because of Clinton's lie --------- 0.

Number of Americans who died because of Bush's lies --------- 2700.
Number of Americans killed because of Clinton's inaction -------- 3,000.
Number of Americans who died because of Bush's lies --------- 2700.
Like you give a shit.