ABC This Week
(George Stephanopoulos)
Below are the topics and guests announced for
this program, along with my take on the “memes” that the show is trying to
push. With each guest’s name are a series of links that I found in a web search……

This episode may have destroyed the facade for us (who of us held any illusions about the liberal takeover of America), but it will take some work to get the word out to the rest of our neighbors.

Regardless of what you think of Al Gore’s competence, I doubt anybody could top Clinton’s personal corruption.

Let’s review Mr. Clinton’s past once again:

He had a 2 decade history of sexual predatation. “Better put some ice on that.”

He personally intervened as Governor of Arkansas to help a crony sell AIDS tainted blood, drawn from convicts, to the Canadian government’s bloodbanks, resulting in 5000 Canadian hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients comeing down with AIDS.

He personally ordered that the FBI screening process be subverted and staffed the White House with convicted felons who were his personal cronies in 1993, in violation of federal law.

He (or his wife) framed with false felony charges a number of White House employees in order help some pals take over the White House Travel department.

He illegally stole 900 pages of secret FBI documents with dirt on Republicans — and used them for blackmail.

He sic-ed the IRS on REPUBLICAN and CONSERVATIVE political opponents in direct violation of federal law, in retaliation to their opposition.

He and his staff of chislers stole the bath towels and guest bath robes on the USS Theodore Roosevelt when he spent the night aboard in 1993.

He even misplaced the nuclear codes!

And the above is just a partial list…..

BILL CLINTON IS STILL, TODAY, A SMALL STATE CROOKED GOVERNOR, who America mistakenly elected in 1992, thanks to Ross Perot. He is still the lying, vicious, vindictive, bully and arrogant man he has was when first elected as governor.

Can anybody show that Al Gore had these same corrosive personalty traits?

I’m no fan of Gore. And I did not vote for him. But Gore, the man, had a track record in politics that wasn’t corrupt when he was a Senator. Yes, he is a loony now. Yes, he is very partisan now. But try as I might, I simply cannot find in him the same level of viciousness and arrogance and “fuck you, America” that the Clintons have.

So ask yourself the question — Given what we know of Clinton, could Gore have possibly been WORSE?

The point I made about his running in 2000 as the incumbent was to point out to Democrats that THEY BLEW IT by not kicking Clinton’s fat, corrupt ass out of the White House when they had a chance.

They could have had the White House back — and probably Congress as well — had they only done the right thing for America and risen above petty partisan politics by removing a truely BAD, INCOMPETENT, AND EVIL man from the White House.

But no….

Das Party über alles is how Democrats have operated since 1972, when the left took them over. And this year, they have openly started wearing their Brownshirts for us all to admire.

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I’ve got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

That is from the interview he has with Fox News on Wednesday, March 24, 2004.

What do you know! Billy boy was right. Clark does indeed shed light on the B.S. failure of the Clinton Presidency.

Hmmm, and how is that better? Slick Willy or Crazy Al – such wonderful choices – sort of like Poe’s pit or the pendulum.

The webmaster’s blog-within-a-blog. Continuously updated, newest items at the top. Please click here to learn more about The Phoenix Project, then click here to see a selection of Old War Dogs merchandise. All sales proceeds go to support The Phoenix…

The nation would have been better off had he been removed from office

Not that I disagree with you, but would we? Wouldn’t Algore have become pres? *shudder*

The real Clinton emerges
From behind the benign face and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill Clinton emerged Sunday during Chris Wallace’s interview on Fox News Channel. There he was on live television, the man those who have worked for him have come to know – the angry, sarcastic, snarling, self-righteous, bombastic bully, roused to a fever pitch. The truer the accusation, the greater the feigned indignation. Clinton jabbed his finger in Wallace’s face, poking his knee, and invading the commentator’s space….

…His self-justifications constitute a mangling of the truth which only someone who once quibbled about what the “definition of ‘is’ is” could perform.

Romeo13, you’re so right, the Democrats are getting desparate, and so is Clinton. The fascade that the Democrats are a serious party concerned about national defense (and not just grasping to get back into power) was destroyed by Clinton and his lies on Sunday.

Today, the Democrats in Congress failed to get closed session to discuss the NIE conclusions scheduled. No doubt this was a political ploy to improve their chances in November — and to do more damaging partisan leaking to the press — but the Republicans refused to bite.

This attempt followed the news conference where President Bush stated he has ordered parts of the April NIE which was leaked to the press over the weekend to be declassified.

Clinton has been exposed as the incompetent liar he is, and there is nothing he can do except rage about it in public. And in his doing so, America finally can see the real Bill Clinton, the one that Morris worked for.

Morris also noted:

Why didn’t the CIA and FBI realize the extent of bin Laden’s involvement in terrorism? Because Clinton never took the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center sufficiently seriously. He never visited the site and his only public comment was to caution against “over-reaction.”

…

In my frequent phone and personal conversations with both Clintons in 1993, there was never a mention, not one, of the World Trade Center attack. It was never a subject of presidential focus.

Failure to grasp the import of the 1993 attack led to a delay in fingering bin Laden and understanding his danger. This, in turn, led to our failure to seize him when Sudan evicted him and also to our failure to carry through with the plot to kidnap him. And, it was responsible for the failure to “certify” him as the culprit until very late in the Clinton administration.

The former president says, “I worked hard to try to kill him.” If so, why did he notify Pakistan of our cruise-missile strike in time for them to warn Osama and allow him to escape? Why did he refuse to allow us to fire cruise missiles to kill bin Laden when we had the best chance, by far, in 1999? The answer to the first question — incompetence; to the second — he was paralyzed by fear of civilian casualties and by accusations that he was wagging the dog.

Clinton not only deserved to be impeached, he should have been removed for incompetence as well as perjury. The nation would have been better off had he been removed from office.

HAD THE DEMOCRATS NOT GONE TO THE WALL, PLACING PARTY ÜBER ALLES, and faced the facts about Clinton as the lying, evil, petty, incompetent President he was, they would have gone down in history as the Party of Courage. But they chose, instead, to defend a serial liar as well as a serial sexual predator, out of pure partisanship — which continued the formal paralysis against fighting terrorism that keynoted the Clinton years.

And had they voted to remove him, Al Gore would have run in 2000 as an INCUMBENT president.

But what the Democrats proved starting in 1998 — as they have done many times since — is that they CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY.

A vote for a Democrat in November, as blogger/talkshow host Hugh Hewitt says, is a vote for surrender and appeasement in the war on terror.

In my opinion, the Democrats can either overhaul their party, starting with expulsion of the traitorous left, or there will be no other choice: Potestas Democraticorum delenda est!

Are we seeing a desperate Democratic party here?

In all seriousness, you always know with Fran what you see is what you get.

What does “froggy” mean?

The phrase “If you are feeling froggy then jump” is a challenge to someone. A fight, debate, whatever. “Getting froggy” means you have accepted said challenge and are retaliating. Clinton challenged with his statements, then Rice “got froggy” in her response. Also a little bit of contempt is implied when “getting froggy”.

Condi for President!

think (I do not know) that AP is southern.

I think AP’s from NY.

As for the topic, I certainly hope that the current administration keeps dispelling the “Clinton Myths and His Attempts at Rewriting History.”

Tangential topic: Where are all the MSM and left wing blogger screams for an investigation into this leak of sensitive and truly classified national security secrets?

It always meant, down my way, the “frogger” was considering handing the “frogee” his/her ass on a plate.

The fact-checking continues: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making “flatly false” claims that the Bush administration didn’t lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks. Rice hammered Clinton, who l…

To quote Jacques Chirac, Clinton has “missed a good opportunity to keep quiet.”