The Tin Man only has a chance if they let him dawdle through fractions of 26...51..and 1:15

You know you're on a horse racing board when a thread entitled "Good Article About Clinton" winds it's way to The Tin Man. :)

Thanks for the links, O & RP; I'll read them once this crappy day at work calms down... Oracle, please quote to me where in any of my posts I said, "no one knows anything" since you are very concerned with making sure you are quoted directly. :) I don't think I've ever said anything of the sort.

But to brighten everyone's day (not)-- here's conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan on the pending torture legislation. I know, I know, BB, a gay columnist can't possibly be conservative. But I don't know what else you call a small-gov't, flat-tax, pro-life proponent, and that's what he is. Anyway...

<<Those of us trying to resist the Bush administration's seizure of permanent emergency powers have so far failed to alert the American public of the immense danger to their basic liberties that this administration represents. Maybe this story in the Washington Post today will help wake America up.

How do I put this in words as clearly as possible. If the U.S. government decides, for reasons of its own, that you are an "illegal enemy combatant," i.e. that you are someone who

"has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States,"

they can detain you without charges indefinitely, granting you no legal recourse except to a military tribunal, and, under the proposed bill, "disappear" and torture you. This is not just restricted to aliens or foreigners, but applies to U.S. citizens as well. It can happen anywhere in the U.S. at any time. We are all at potential risk.

Whatever else this is, it is not a constitutional democracy. It is a thinly-veiled military dictatorship, subject to only one control: the will of the Great Decider. And the war that justifies this astonishing attack on American liberty is permanent, without end. And check the vagueness of the language: "purposefully supported" hostilities. Could that mean mere expression of support for terror? Remember that many completely innocent people have already been incarcerated for years without trial or any chance for a fair hearing on the basis of false rumors or smears or even bounty hunters. Or could it be construed, in the rhetoric of Hannity and O'Reilly, as merely criticizing the Great Decider and thereby being on the side of the terrorists?

All I know is that al Qaeda is winning battles every week now. And they are winning them because their aim of gutting Western liberty is shared by the president of the United States. The fact that we are finding this latest, chilling stuff out now - while this horrifying bill is being rushed into law to help rescue some midterms - is beyond belief. It must be stopped, filibustered, prevented. And anyone who cares about basic constitutional freedom - conservatives above all - should be in the forefront of stopping it.>>

This is not a partisan issue. It doesn't matter whether the President is a republican or democrat. The vast majority of congressmen from both parties would do the same thing. You really don't seem to get it. It's not that complicated. It comes down to this: Nobody from either party likes harsh interrogations. But but if you have to choose between a harsh interrogation vs thousand of Americans dead in a terrorist attack, I would take the harsh interrogation of a suspected terorrist every time. It's that simple.

I will ask you a simple question. If you were in charge and the CIA told you that they captured an Al Qadea operative and they believed he had information on upcoming terrorist attacks, what would you instruct them to do? Let's assume that they say that he won't talk voluntarily. I think the vast majority of Americans would want the CIA to get the information out of him any way they could. It's a tough choice but if it's going to possibly save thousands of lives, then I think they have to do it.

GR,
Here's an article worth reading.
Amazes me how some of them shut up when they get a push back...like C Wallace. The tv media only showed selected cuts.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0926-26.htm

Gee. I guess Bill creates his own reality! Clarke wasnt fired by Bush and Rice hammers Clinton on spreading false info. What a shock.

Genuine,
Clinton got a free pass for all of his bull**** and lies because it was peacetime.
I didn't have a problem with him screwing an intern, I did have a problem with him lying about it. My friend pointed out last night when watching the tape of his meltdown with Chris Wallace, that he used the same finger wagging when he told America that "he did not have sex with that woman". Same exact finger wagging and facial expression.
Genuine in poker that would be called "his tell". Hes lying when does that.
The guy basically inherited a peacetime economy from the republicans who won the cold war, then slashed and cut military, intelligence and defense spending. He then represented to the American people what " a great job he did in resolving the deficit".
He destroyed the morale of the military and intelligence. And he allowed Bin laden to get away. All this because he was too busy fighting scandals and while he and Hillary were trying to play FRD and Eleanor with that health care reform he thought was so important to his legacy.
His first and most glaring screwup was treating the first attempt on the WTC not as an act of war, but as a federal crime. What exactly was he thinking? That they wouldn't do it again?
His legacy to me, and to many others, will be allowing Bin laden to escape and not preventing the great tragedies that befell us afterward because of it.
I can assure you that people do not attempt to steal documents that will vindicate them, they attempt to steal documents that will embarass them. I loved Clinton rushing to Berger's defense after he was accused by actually telling the media that Berger always had a very messy desk(this is an actual quote!!!) and that it was very believable that he took them by accident. I guess he thought the bull**** would keep on playing and playing, even after he was out of office.
Any attempts to pin this situation on Bush are ridiculous. He inherited this nightmare. We'll never know what kind of president he may have been had he not been forced to deal with this war on terror 24/7 through just about his whole time in office.
As far as Seattle's assertion that he was one of our greatest president's goes, I am kinda wondering what exactly he accomplished in office to make that incredible statement.
Im a republican but noone tells me how to think. Two of the greatest presidents in our history were Democrats, FDR and Truman. Real men who had real guts and made hard choices when the country needed a leader who could make them, and needed them badly.

Clarke wasn't demoted?
Rice will cover Bush's butt...SHOCKING!
Believe your own "reality" Timm.

If you ask most people who saw the interview, they would totally disagree with the assessment that this author had.

Did you read the article that I posted the link to? I think that article is a much more accurate assessment than your article.

It seems like you think that every article on commondreams is gospel. I'm not going to say that every article on there is inaccurate but here is a good anaolgy. Have you ever watched a criminal trial? If you only listen to the prosecutor's opening argument, you would think that the defendant is guilty for sure. On the other hand, if you only listened to the defense atttorney's opening argument, you would think the defendant was definitely innocent. But after you listen to both sides, you realize that it's a tough call.

When you read an article from commondreams, it is the same thing as my trial analogy. You are basically getting a one-sided argument. And I admit that my article was a one-sided argument too. If you didn't know the facts and simply read only one of those two articles, you would think that the author has a slam-dunk case. But once you read the other article, you realize that there are two sides to the story.

DTS: Your emperor has no clothes. I'm so glad we didnt have a war when Bubba was Prez.....we would have had to conduct a poll on what to do....

after reading that attempt the other day at inducing hysteria by calling a routine (in this day and age) ships movement a prelude to war, i can tell you what to do with your common dreams tripe. sorry dts. i don't get it. you seem to come off in your posts as an intelligent guy, and then you use that garbage to prove a point. you'd be better off without it!!

Shes's right,ya know! He is intelligent, and he uses commondreams....there's a synapse there somewhere!

If you go back and read who this was intended for, I guess that either I don't get it, or maybe you don't.
If you don't think sending a carrier group to the Persian Gulf for the October surprise, just prior to the November elections, then my guess is that the repubs will run on their successful "war record" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Though it was indeed very nice to Dubbya discount the NIE report today and call for "selective declassification". Yup, 16 "Intelligence Agencies" that he's directed for the past 5 1/2 years.
SHHH...keep the secrets...."Loose lips sink ships".

You are certainly entitled to your views. If you can't see through the propaganda, there's not much more I can say.

DTS: the trouble is that you only see the propanganda you want to see! I guess you don't feel the need to have state secrets,even at the possible harm to the nations' security?

The thing that is so ridiculous about the Clinton interview is that the liberals actually think that Wallace did something wrong. They think he was out of line and Clinton put him in his place. That is absurd. What did Wallace do wrong? Wallace was very respectful and he asked a fair question. He didn't attack Clinton. He asked him if he felt that they did enough with regard to Bin Laden. That's not a legitmate question? What are you guys thinking?

The reason everyone is making a big deal about the interview is because Clinton got so angry over nothing. Why would a guy get so mad about a fairly easy and predictable question. Have you guys ever watched Meet the Press? Have you heard the questions that Tim Russert asks to guys like Rumsfeld and Cheney? He asks them much more confrontational questions than Wallace asked? They don't get angry. They answer the questions.

Our great nation was founded on the "consent of the governed".
If they are uniformed, the decisions they make will also be tainted.
Play the "security card", the "fear card" and it plays like some cards that have been played before. Germany 1934 anyone?
If you don't wish to be informed of choices that are being made on your behalf, Timm, so be it.
Believe what ever you want.
I'll close by stating that "state secrets" and "open democracy" (republic), are incongruous. See Thomas Jefferson's thoughts (google).

i think it was a legit question as well! clinton could very easily have sat there and stated all those times they almost got bin laden, could have outlined all the things they did, or attempted to do. instead he got defensive as hell...he even tried to say wallace was part of some bigger 'conspiracy' type thing against clinton. what a nut he seemd to be. and yeah, i agree with oracle. exact same serious look and finger wag. i did not have....blah blah. he's a pathological liar.

i want to be informed! but i don't think common dreams is who i want doing the informing. lol
germany? now we're in pre-ww2 germany?! lemme guess, you read that on common dreams right?

we have had a presence in the gulf for DECADES. my husband was over in the gulf while i was pregnant with our oldest son, who is now serving in the navy. that's through how many presidencies, both repub and dem?? carrier groups move in, so another can move back out. i thought you read my posts about that the other day...

Danzig,
Take a deep breath.
Instead of attacking me or my views, put yours out.
Put up some facts as to how successful our three wars are going.
Post the links to all the right wing sites you want.
Keep believing.

I want to be informed....that is why I vote for legislators! If you think that the fear card is being played.....it's usually the Dems who're crying " the sky is falling...vote for me!"

Mr. Clinton is not anywhere close to the W in terms of honesty. Not even close! One man lies about a blowjob. Another man lies us into war.

The blowjob guy is definitely the liar.

Exactly right! I don't understand how some of these other posters don't see this. I guess they just see what they want to see.

Timm,
It might amaze you but I'm not a Dem.
So stop playing the "label card".
Just type out all the information you have, you know...what you really think is important...what you've spent so much of your time getting "informed" about.
I'll read it.

You obviously don't know what the definition of a lie is. If the Bush Administration went to war based on faulty intelligence, that doesn't mean they lied. If you listened to interviews with democrats in government just before the war, they were saying the same thing that Bush was saying. They were saying stuff like, "We know Saddam has WMDs." Everyone thought that Saddam had WMDs. That doesn't mean they all lied. It means they had bad information.

As I said in my post the other day, the US still had the right to invade Iraq because Saddam was not honoring the conditions of the cease-fire from the original Persian Gulf War.

Obviously none of you have ever been associated with anyone of celebrity so i will inform you of how interviews work.

When two parties agree to an interview, topics are discussed and time on said topics is agreed upon beforehand. President Clinton's purpose for the interview was primarily to discuss Climate Change and time was to be devoted to that topic or else he would not have agreed.

When that idiot started in on PRESIDENT Clinton, it was obvious that FOX wasnt going to live up their end of the bargain. That IS a hatchet job.

Unfortunately, most dont know this so it comes across that Mr. Clinton was just getting aggressive with Wallace.

Now, do i think that Clinton knew beforehand that Wallace would take this approach? Of course he did. Even his strongest detractors would agree that Mr. Clinton is a brilliant man. He knew that he was going to come down on Wallace before he came on the set. Regardless, Wallace was in the wrong for going away from the agreed upon topic. Now...does that make sense?

Clinton took that moron apart just like he did the late Peter Jennings a few years back. heck, just like he did Bob Dole and George the 1st. You guys do remember what he did to your boy George in those debates dont you? If your memory is lapsing, go google it.

Yes, Mr. Clinton was a two term president by a landslide. He was rated top ten presidents by a group of historians in terms of domestic and foreign policy. He didnt need any hanging chads or any of that stuff.

lol
i love it....i don't need to take a deep breath. it always kills me when someone else wants to make it seem as tho the people they are debating are somehow too 'excited' to talk to.
i'm not attacking you, or YOUR views, i'm attacking that ridiculous site you put up. you put that article up the other day from them, i told you facts that day. is that incorrect? now i say AGAIN that we've been in the gulf for years, and now you post the above--which has nothing to do with what i posted. i did not in any way imply that our three (three??) wars are going hunky dory, i was only replying to some supposed link between election time, a carrier group, and our supposed plan to invade iran---we're invading iran based on the simple fact that the eisenhower group is moving to the gulf?? lol why haven't we attacked with those already there? elections signs are already littering the streets, why wait?!

also, if you ask repent, he'll tell you i'm a liberal. you criticize timm for 'labeling' you, yet you do the same thing!

again, i was talking about clinton. what he has to do with bush i don't know. so bush is a liar too...but the interview we were discussing was about clinton the liar, not bush the liar, or any other pols that are liars.

Ummm...read the CIA reports Rupert. Even after the CIA made it clear to Bush and company that Iraq had no ties to Al Quada, the president and the vice president still made that one of the reasons to go to war. Shall i pull the story or will you take my word for it?

DTS: I don't have the skills,nor do I have the inclination to post all the info I've seen. I'll do you one better though...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Grant it to me that I have the intelligence to make a decision! OK...so you're not registered Dem..I've hardly labeled you. It's not like you don't leave clues to how you think and feel,right?

Danzig,
Go back to that thread. It's time dated.
I thanked you for the information you provided.
If you need to hear it again....THANKS!

I agree...we arent attacking Iran. However, we are "flexing a little muscle" and we have done that throughout our history with troop movements and ship deployments.

Its negoiating time with Iran and i dont think that there is anything wrong in showing them the stick if they want the carrot.

regarding going off topic:

Mr. Clinton agreed to his first one-on-one interview ever on "FOX News Sunday." The ground rules were simple: 15 minutes for our sit-down, split evenly between the Global Initiative and anything else we wanted to ask. But as you'll see now in the full, unedited interview, that's not how it turned out.

Timm,
I'll give you the benifit of the doubt also.
Yes, I agree you have "intelligence".
Yes, you can form your own decisions.
IMHO..informed decisions weigh both sides.

Yes, thats great. The Bin laden question came FOUR minutes into the interview. Is that half? I didnt think so.

maybe they were going to do one of his questions, and then one of theirs...a back and forth so to speak.
heck, he knew what he was getting into...all he had to do was remain calm and answer, not go off on a rant. it WAS a legit question. he could have answered in a way that made what he did look right. instead he now looks emotional and foolish.

DTS: I know this will strain some enquiring minds,but I do take into acct both sides before I answer a question.

There ya go!
Believe it or not, so do I!

Now,THAT'S straining MY mind,lol!

You live in a dream world if you think that Clinton "took Wallace apart". The only thing Clinton did was make a fool of himself.

There was nothing for Clinton "take a apart". There was no debate going on. Wallace asked him a simple question. You can't take a guy apart who asky you a simple question. That is why Clinton made such a fool of himself.

Forget about what partisans think. I'm sure that very liberal democrats think that Clinton did great in the interview. I'm sure that conservative republicans think that Clinton made a fool of himself. The important thing is what non-partisan people think. If you think that non-partisan people think Clinton handled himself well in that interview, you are sadly mistaken.

LOL!!!
Not my intention to give you a "brain cramp".
Should I call 911?