The 2006 USA Election!

[Bluefront]

Issac.....The Afghanistan attack was only the first step in the "War on Terror". a prelude to the present conflict, where we are bogged down, and will no doubt slink away, particularly considering the results of this past election. It's all one war on terror....Afghanistan, Iraq, hopefully no one else over there.

But what else was there to do? Anybody who attacks the USA, will be attacked in return.....even if the exact target is hard to identify. Any president who does nothing under those circumstances, is a dead duck in the next election. Carter is one example who comes to mind....

[Beyonder]

Now take our former president clinton.....supposedly "well respected". Go to Google, type in Vince Foster murder, read some of the gazillion hits.

You can't be serious. Please read this. His death was ruled a suicide by multiple investigations, and the groups putting forth the whole Clinton-Murder conspiracy theories are pretty damn far from being well respected outlets of news. Take a look at the groups insinuating this garbage, and it becomes pretty obvious who is actually "sleeze."

Also realize this poster-boy of the democratic party, former president of the USA, allowed to go out in public without chains......has been involved in numerous incidents similar to the Vince Foster thing, maybe a hundred or more times, going back to his early days in Arkansas. The #1 democrat is a scum-bag, and worse.

And you know this because some right-wing fringe organization told you so?

[Bluefront]

Perhaps you forget....clinton is a liar, even under oath. He has had numerous women accuse him of all sorts of abuse, maybe worse. The man's personal lawyer is found dead....with no explanation. The man's body-guards when he was Governor of Ark...who knew too much....dead. The list of these sorts of things is as long as your arm.

Too many coincidences to be an accident. My Arkansas side of the family live near Liittle Rock, and were active in local politics (Democratic). I knew of Bill Clinton well before he was president. Those people were thankful when he was elected pres....."got him out of Arkansas". Sleezy man, sleezy reputation......

[aristide1]

aristide1....I don't usually answer stupid questions, but you already provided the answer. In the few months BushII was president before 9-11, there was not enough time to undo the damage done to USA security by the clinton administration during the previous eight years.

And pray tell, what would you have had him do anyway? Close the borders to Muslims? That would have gone over big.....wouldn't even fly after 9-11.

Green Cool-Aid? Anyone? Anyone?

[aristide1]

Perhaps you forget....clinton is a liar, even under oath. He has had numerous women accuse him of all sorts of abuse, maybe worse. The man's personal lawyer is found dead....with no explanation. The man's body-guards when he was Governor of Ark...who knew too much....dead. The list of these sorts of things is as long as your arm.

Too many coincidences to be an accident. My Arkansas side of the family live near Liittle Rock, and were active in local politics (Democratic). I knew of Bill Clinton well before he was president. Those people were thankful when he was elected pres....."got him out of Arkansas". Sleezy man, sleezy reputation......

Assuming for one second your accusations all have merit, how does this one person paint the picture for the entire party?

Nixon was caught red handed, and to be pardoned by a president he must have done some illegal, yes? No conjecture, solid undisputable facts, no conspiracy theories at all, just the clear words of President Ford. Remember? And what happened to Spiro Agnew, charged with tax evasion. Is that another model of the republican party? Sounds a lot like "only the little people pay taxes."

Then look at what the republicans have done, the amount of pork they have passed as law, the dismissal of such petty items as gee, what's that paper called again? Oh yeah, The Constitution.

Please list all those that left office under threat of investigation under Reagan or Bush43. Then list all those under Clinton. Tell us which list is longer. And lets not forget who leaked the name of Plame to the public, and who said that person should be fired.

And pray tell, what would you have had him do anyway? Close the borders to Muslims? That would have gone over big.....wouldn't even fly after 9-11.

Well nothing since he clearly said on TV "I don't know where Bin Laden is and I don't care". When was this attitude any different?

Oh, don't forget to google Elvis sightings to add more credibility to your blog claim.

Of course we could start talking about real records outside of our availability, court sealed records.

Of course you can continue to repeat your single fixation to attempt to avert attention to all the relevent issues.

[aristide1]

Now take our former president clinton.....supposedly "well respected". Go to Google, type in Vince Foster murder, read some of the gazillion hits.

You can't be serious. Please read this. His death was ruled a suicide by multiple investigations,...

Lack of logic/reason leads to desperate accusations.

...and the groups putting forth the whole Clinton-Murder conspiracy theories are pretty damn far from being well respected outlets of news. Take a look at the groups insinuating this garbage, and it becomes pretty obvious who is actually "sleeze."

As I said earlier, blogs being passed off as facts. How convincing.

[aristide1]

Let's take a brief look at the last 6 years, shall we?

I'll dispense with saying sleaze after each one of these,
we all know.

Iraq
Abu Ghraib
Guantanamo
Unwarranted Phone Taps
Representative Tom Delay
Representative Katherine Harris
Representative Bob Ney
Representative Mark Foley
Representative Dennis Hastert
Senator George Allen
Senator Bill Frist
The Vice Presidential Energy Task Force
Record oil company profits
Anwar Pipeline
Adelphia
Merck
Halliburton
Arthur Anderson
Qwest
Tyco
WorldCom
Global Crossing
Global Warming
Enron
Abramoff
Ralph Reed
Rita
Katrina
FEMA
Terri
Condi
Harriet Miers
The Supreme Court
Diebold
Florida, 2000
Ohio, 2004
North Korea
Iran
Darfur
Stem Cell Research
Scooter Libby
Valerie Plame
Golden Parachutes
Shrunken Pensions
Social Security
Habeas Corpus
The Baghdad Museum
Tora Bora
Taliban Resurgence
Iraqi Insurgents
Mission Accomplished
Illegal Immigration
Intelligent Design
Swift Boat Hit Squads
Ann Coulter
John Ashcroft
Alberto Gonzales
Duck Cheney <-- Draft dodger
Donald Rumsfeld

Nukiller

The Divider and Decider

I have to go now, I am overcome by the need to shower.

[aristide1]

As a typical party zealot you failed to address any of my points. Locking onto a single event instead of addressing the whole picture. Oh I almost forgot, 2 wrongs make a right.

Innocent dead under Clinton - 1
Innocent dead under Bush - ???,??? ??

Still waiting for a count over here.

[Erssa]

Omg, Aristide, what a list!

Pretty much says it all. I'm guessing Bluefront is now preparing a similar list on the democrats, because he can't really defend the republicans, he can only attack democrats.

[Bluefront]

Heh.....nice straw-man list there. But that list only goes to my elbow. My list goes all the way to the tip of my now extended middle finger.

I called clinton a scum-bag when some wag called him "respected". Nowhere did I use the term respected to apply to BushII. I have stated that I would not have started a "war on terror" in the middle-east. My response to the 9-11 attack would have been consentrated on internal security measures, much differently from what Bush is doing. But Bush is running things.

And I ask the question again.....What would you have done to respond to the 9-11 attack? I consider this a legitimate question, since what Bush did, cost the Republicans the 2006 election, the topic of this thread. I have never heard a Democratic response to that question, in this thread, or anywhere else.

[floffe]

As for what to do in response to 9-11, the attack on Afghanistan had, and still has, support from most countries in the world. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, and consequently few countries supported that war. This war is what lost this election for the Republicans.

And yes, Clinton is generally well-respected outside the US. He is seen as having been in favour of multi-lateral cooperation, and did a lot for the conflict in the Middle East.

[Erssa]

Heh.....nice straw-man list there.

Strawmen? Evidence is now strawmen?

I called clinton a scum-bag when some wag called him "respected".

That's how rest of the world sees him. He's just recently lecturing here in Finland. Even if BushII ever wanted to start lecturing after his reign is over, noone would be interested. Hell, even Al Gore is more interesting.

And I ask the question again.....What would you have done to respond to the 9-11 attack? I consider this a legitimate question, since what Bush did, cost the Republicans the 2006 election, the topic of this thread.

It's a pointless question. What's done is done, no need to be wise in retrospective. I'm pretty sure you supported the war too when it started, but have changed your views because it's not going as well as planned.

I support your war of terror.

[Bluefront]

Respected..... Maybe elsewhere since most people outside the USA did not witness our man clinton go live on TV, point his finger at the camera, and lying through his teeth say, "I did not have sex with that woman".

An admitted liar is not a respectable person in my book.....perhaps in yours?

And to set things straight....from the very start I was against fighting a ground war in the middle-east, and have stated as such many times. The 9-11 terrorists were in this country, and their brothers are still here. Anything we do in the middle-east will not change that....

[IsaacKuo]

Issac.....The Afghanistan attack was only the first step in the "War on Terror". a prelude to the present conflict, where we are bogged down, and will no doubt slink away, particularly considering the results of this past election. It's all one war on terror....Afghanistan, Iraq, hopefully no one else over there.

I'm sorry, but you honestly believe that? I mean, I can understand saying Iraq is part of the "War on Terror" if you'd like to genocidally wipe out all Muslims--but then you say "hopefully no one else"? That's just ridiculous. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

But what else was there to do? Anybody who attacks the USA, will be attacked in return.....even if the exact target is hard to identify.

The exact target was NOT hard to identify. Bin Laden was the enemy. He was in Afghanistan, being protected by the Taliban. If we wanted Bin Laden, we had to do it by going though the Taliban. Plain and simple. We dropped the ball by letting Bin Laden escape to Pakistan, as well as the Taliban.

The OBVIOUS next step was to go after Bin Laden and his Taliban protectors in Pakistan. We didn't. We instead wasted our resources in Iraq.

The Taliban was allowed to regroup and rebuild their forces in Pakistan. They're still at it. They're still in Pakistan. And we're still doing nothing about it. Instead, we're still in Afghanistan suffering a constant stream of attacks from Taliban/Al Qaeda attackers from their strongholds in Pakistan. They cross the border freely. We don't.

Any president who does nothing under those circumstances, is a dead duck in the next election. Carter is one example who comes to mind....

Carter DID do something under the circumstances. He used the newly formed anti-terrorist special forces unit to attempt a daring assault and rescue operation (the need for such special forces units was demonstrated in the 1976 Olympics). It failed, due to mechanical failure, but at least it was a serious attempt to ATTACK the terrorists.

In contrast, Reagan secretly negotiated with the Iranian terrorists, establishing a friendly secret relationship with them--even selling arms to them! All while he was publicly talking tough against them!

Reagan's record on terrorism is actually abysmal, and his failures emboldened the terrorists for decades to come. His reaction to the terrorist bombing of Marines in Lebanon? Cut and run! Carter at least walked the walk--he didn't negotiate with terrorists and he didn't retreat from them. If Reagan had had a spine like Carter, then maybe the terrorists would have learned that we Americans won't buckle under when a few good men get bombed.

[IsaacKuo]

And to set things straight....from the very start I was against fighting a ground war in the middle-east, and have stated as such many times.

Yes, yes...we know you favor the genocide approach.

The 9-11 terrorists were in this country, and their brothers are still here. Anything we do in the middle-east will not change that....

Actually, Al Qaeda has as far as we can tell NO presence in the US--and we've been looking hard. For the last half decade, the Justice department has been desperately scouring the US for any signs of Islamic terrorist cells and terrorist activity. And so far, the only thing they've come up with are false positives. Not a single credible domestic terrorist plot has been stopped by the Justice department yet--because there was never a domestic terrorist plot to stop in the first place.

There just isn't a significant home-grown terrorist threat in the US, the way there is in England and other parts of Europe. It seems that this is may be because American Muslims aren't segregated from the rest of society, the way they are in many European slums.

The threat apparently really is from outside.

That's not to say we shouldn't remain vigilant within our borders. But in order to counter the terrorist threat effectively, we have to be honest about the level of threat and where it honestly comes from.

[IsaacKuo]

And I ask the question again.....What would you have done to respond to the 9-11 attack? I consider this a legitimate question, since what Bush did, cost the Republicans the 2006 election, the topic of this thread. I have never heard a Democratic response to that question, in this thread, or anywhere else.

Yes you have. I am a Democrat. I responded with my answer in this thread--attacking Afghanistan. This was a popularly supported move, worldwide, and remains so to this day despite the Iraq War's unpopularity.

Now, assuming Bin Laden escapes to the Taliban strongholds in Pakistan, I would have favored invading Pakistan. By the time Bin Laden escaped, it was clear that proxies like the Northern Alliance were simply no substitute for our own forces. It was foolish to entrust fighting the Taliban to the Pakistanis, and the mediocre performance of the Northern Alliance should have been a warning sign. As it turns out, the Pakistani military had a zillion reasons to not fight their brothers, so their effectiveness was infinitely worse than the effectiveness of the Northern Alliance (i.e. zero).

Unfortunately, I'm not optimistic about how incursions into Pakistan would have ended up. It would have more or less ensured the de facto collapse of the Pakistani government. This would have forced an extended occupation, which would have more or less turned Pakistan into what Iraq is today--just with different religious factions bombing each other to bits.

Nevertheless, at least we would have been justified, and it would have been Bin Laden that we dug up from a hideyhole rather than Saddam.

On the plus side, though, there would have been a couple strong neighboring powers who could have been instrumental in the eventual stabalization of Pakistan--India and China.

[Bluefront]

Issac....what you suggest is exactly what Bush did. He just was not successful in capturing Osama, understandable since the man escaped into Pakistan. A ground invasion into that country would have caused a world of more problems, without any assurance Osama would be captured. And....it would have caused the Republicans to be in the same position they are today. Had they actually captured Osama, I'm convinced the "war on terror" would have stopped right there, even though Osama is not the whole problem. An Iraq invasion would not have happened.....IMHO.

I never suggested "genocide" as any solution to anything. You are mistaken if you think so. We are still in a "war on terror" right here in the USA. We are the #1 target for terrorists. Only a wide ocean keeps them out......but that is not nearly a good enough solution.

Had Osama been captured, the Republicans would not have lost the 2006 elections. So Bush had a chance to be successful.

What were his other options?

[snutten]

I have stated that I would not have started a "war on terror" in the middle-east. My response to the 9-11 attack would have been consentrated on internal security measures, much differently from what Bush is doing. But Bush is running things.

And to set things straight....from the very start I was against fighting a ground war in the middle-east, and have stated as such many times.

It has something to do with we (the US people) would rather fight the war against terrorism on foreign soil, rather than here at home. Maybe Iraq was not the right place for such a war.....but where was a better place?Iraq seems to be a gathering point for terrorists and at least a good place to start. It's easy to second-guess such actions, but Bush did what he had to do. I don't blame the man for taking the war to foreign soil....

Concerning the Sleeze bag, former president Clinton:

Frankly I never cared about Clinton's moral short-comings.

[Trip]

Isaac,

In Kosovo, the US interest was the interest in stopping genocide.

I think a lot of the genocide was propaganda not reality. It hasn't stopped only continued against the Serbs by the Muslims.

Anyway, genocide isn't a US vital interest. We've got genocide in Iraq as well.

What's odd about the Serbs is they were one of the targets of Hitler in WWII yet were portrayed at least in this country as NAZIs.

[Bluefront]

snutten..... Where did you find tha quote about clinton's moral short-comings? It either ....was not from me, was taken out of contex, or I was drunk. Clinton was/is a moral degenerate.

So what about that Iraq statement.....Bush attacked Iraq to further the "war on terror". It was a course of action that turned out badly, but started with good intentions. There are obviously still terrorists in Iraq, and if/when we leave, there will be more terrorism. Most people in congress approved of his actions at the start of the war......flip-flopped when it turned bad.

Answer my question.....what else should Bush have done after 9-11?

[IsaacKuo]

Issac....what you suggest is exactly what Bush did.

Invading Afghanistan? Yes, and so what? You asked what Democrats would have done, and that's what Democrats would have done. We supported Bush's invasion of Afghanistan.

He just was not successful in capturing Osama, understandable since the man escaped into Pakistan. A ground invasion into that country would have caused a world of more problems, without any assurance Osama would be captured.

Yes, an invasion of Pakistan would have caused problems. Not all Democrats in Bush's position would have invaded Pakistan. THIS Democrat would have, knowing full well what the likely eventual price would be.

But see, I view winning in Afghanistan important. We have done amazingly good things for the people of Afghanistan by toppling the Taliban. In particular, we've given the female half of the population hope that they never had before. They DO welcome us as liberators, and STILL DO TODAY. But the Taliban is back! They were down for a while, but they regrouped in Pakistan and have been gaining strength ever since. They've been pushing and pushing ever since, crossing the border and killing our troops whenever they can. The moment we leave is the moment they return, and all of the girls and women who have been working and receiving an education to have a better lot in life than street prostitute or pregnante housewife can kiss it all goodbye.

There can't be victory in Afghanistan as long as the Taliban have a stronghold in Pakistan.

If we didn't invade Iraq, then we might have had a chance to go after the Taliban in Pakistan. As it is, we can know full well that the only way to win in Afghanistan is to go across the border--but we lack the capability to do it.

And....it would have caused the Republicans to be in the same position they are today. Had they actually captured Osama, I'm convinced the "war on terror" would have stopped right there, even though Osama is not the whole problem. An Iraq invasion would not have happened.....IMHO.

The "War on Terror" SHOULD have stopped right there. Iraq? What would have happened in Iraq is that if we were lucky we'd have weapon inspectors return to confirm that Saddam had no WMDs. At worst, he would have had no WMDs but we wouldn't be able to confirm it. Either way, Saddam was an annoying thorn for us but not a terrorist threat. He actually did a good job suppressing terrorists in a way we never can (because we simply aren't ever going to employ the same ruthless method of ruling he used).

I never suggested "genocide" as any solution to anything. You are mistaken if you think so. We are still in a "war on terror" right here in the USA. We are the #1 target for terrorists. Only a wide ocean keeps them out......but that is not nearly a good enough solution.

Whether you want to call it genocide or not, wiping out all the Muslims is genocide. Call it your "final solution" if you'd rather.

Had Osama been captured, the Republicans would not have lost the 2006 elections. So Bush had a chance to be successful.

Who knows? When they captured Saddam, it barely registered in the polls. When they announced Saddam's death penalty verdict on the eve of the election, it had no noticeable effect at all. It's not clear what effect capturing Osama would have had on public sentiment.

Note that there's a huge difference between common wisdom and reality. For example, the sex scandals with Foley and Haggard were expected to have a big effect on evangelicals. In fact, they went to the polls in the same percentages as in 2004, and broke 70-30 in favor of Republicans the same as in 2004.

[IsaacKuo]

In Kosovo, the US interest was the interest in stopping genocide.

I think a lot of the genocide was propaganda not reality. It hasn't stopped only continued against the Serbs by the Muslims.

Anyway, genocide isn't a US vital interest.

Stopping genocide IS a US interest. Whether it is a "vital" interest depends on your perspective, I suppose. The reason it's a US interest is because the US people deem it so and the rest of the world agrees. When genocide occurs, humanity as a whole suffers for it.

We've got genocide in Iraq as well.

We HAD genocide when Saddam was wiping out the Kurds. Bush 41 decided that stopping genocide was more important than respecting the surrender treaty to the letter, and created a safe zone (which Clinton and Bush 43 continued).

What we have today in Iraq is a civil war with many atrocities, which are arguably examples of genocide. Still, it's peanuts compared to what's going on in Darfur.

The sad unfortunate calculation which must be made is that even with all of our military might, and full military commitment, we can't stop the atrocities in Iraq. We can stop them elsewhere if we redeployed our forces. It's the same reason why we didn't invade the Soviet Union or China when they commited massacres. We just don't have the military capability to do anything about it.

We had the military capability to prevent Saddam from wiping out the Kurds. We don't have the military capability to stop today's Iraqis from killing each other.

What's odd about the Serbs is they were one of the targets of Hitler in WWII yet were portrayed at least in this country as NAZIs.

It's not odd at all. It simply reflects the fact that monsters are monsters because of what they do and what they believe, not who they are.

[aristide1]

My list goes all the way to the tip of my now extended middle finger.

Where is it? The undisclosed location?

And I ask the question again.....What would you have done to respond to the 9-11 attack?

I'll address your questions when you address mine. Tell you what, I'll address yours when you count how many of mine you refuse to address as opposed to a count of yours. I'm still waiting.

Despite a crumbling stance, you refuse to acknowledge and march on. How Bush-like. What a farce.

I'd also like to know why Clinton is the poster child for democrats and Bush is not the poster child for republicans?

[Bluefront]

This is boring....here's a list of a few people not with us any longer, all involved with clinton, in Arkansas, in Washington DC. Only one person I ever knew was murdered, committed suicide, vanished, etc. Apparently knowing clinton is bad for your health....

The following is a list of people connected with Bill Clinton who have died suddenly or under unusual Circumstances:

Coincidence?

James McDougal - Clinton's convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement for refusing to testify as a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.

Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.

Vince Foster - Former white House counselor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock's Rose law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.

Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.

C. Victor Raiser II - & - Montgomery Raiser, Major players in the Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.

Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock, September 1992. Described by Clinton as a "Dear friend and trusted advisor".

Ed Willey - Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in Virginia of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.

Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Park's son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton. He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.

James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of people containing names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas.

James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to Whitewater. Kathy Ferguson -Ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson died in May 1994 was found dead in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she was going somewhere.

Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a possible Corroborating witness for Paula Jones.

Bill Shelton - Arkansas state Trooper and fiancee of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancee, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his fiancee.

Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton friend Dan Lassater died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.

Florence Martin - Accountant sub-contractor for the CIA related to the Barry Seal Mena Airport drug smuggling case. Died of three gunshot wounds.


Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.

Paula Grober - Clinton's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.

Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparent suicide in the middle of his investigation.

Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington DC apartment. Had delivered a report to Janet Reno 3 weeks before his death.

Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August 15, 1993 Was investigating Morgan Guarantee scandal.

Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.

Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.

Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton's advisory council personally treated Clinton's mother, stepfather and brother.

Barry Seal - Drug running pilot out of Mena Arkansas, Death was no accident.

Johnny Lawhorn Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Clinton in the trunk of a car left in his repair shop. Died when his car hit a utility pole.

Stanley Huggins - Suicide. Investigated Madison Guarantee. His report was never released.

Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane exploded.

Kevin Ives & Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation.

Controversial case here-initial report of death was due to falling asleep on railroad track. Later reports claim the 2 boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.


THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES / HENRY CASE:

Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, July, 1988

Keith McMaskle - Died stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988

Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.

Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April, 1989.

James Milan - Found decapitated. Coroner ruled death due to natural causes.

Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.

Richard Winters - Was a suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. Was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989

THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD:

Major William S. Barkley Jr.
Captain Scott J. Reynolds
Sgt. Brian Hanley
Sgt. Tim Sabel
Major General William Robertson
Col. William Densberger
Col. Robert Kelly
Spec. Gary Rhodes
Steve Willis
Robert Williams
Conway LeBleu
Todd McKeehan

I wouldn't want to know the man personally.....

[aristide1]

So your logic is everyone who died during Clinton's administration was Clinton's fault.

Sounds like republican logic to me. Superb proof of wrong doing.

Now let's further access what's being said here. A republican congress and senate, the CIA, and the FBI, all couldn't find enough evidence to even arrest Clinton, let alone convict them. So why exactly did we trust this inept team with Iraqi intelligence?

[Bluefront]

aristide1.....I'm sure you realize these are not just random people who died. Why do you think clinton was called "slick willie", long before he went to washington? It was because he wormed out of so many bad situations, situations that would have put you or me in jail. It's difficult to put a Governor on trial for anything.....even with good evidence.

The one that stands out for me is the poor auto mechanic who found a very incriminating check belonging to clinton. Stupidly....he opened his mouth, shortly ended up dead, like all the others.

Check the names of those dead body-guards.

Many were members of the Arkansas nat. guard, apparently knew too much. They were somehow transferred to texas, and many died in the initial raid on the Waco compound, another clinton-lead disaster.

This is a list of dead people, not a list of names disliked by a certain party. Too many dead people to which the name clinton is attached.....to be an accident. No wonder people in Arkansas were glad when he left.

Respected....oh sure.

[Beyonder]

Bluefront,

The list is total rubbish. For the same reason I wouldn't post these lists, I wouldn't ever consider your list to be valid.

I dislike Bush, but it's utterly absurd to propose that a president can get away with murder like this; Bill Clinton was nailed for something as minor as perjury, yet somehow he manages to kill/murder dozens of people undetected? The likelyhood of that is somewhere around zero.

[aristide1]

Now let's further access what's being said here. A republican congress and senate, the CIA, and the FBI, all couldn't find enough evidence to even arrest Clinton, let alone convict them. So why exactly did we trust this inept team with Iraqi intelligence?

Sorry to direct you back to reality.

Give my regards to Bat Boy.

William S. Barkley Jr.

I Googled this, what a total waste of time, nothing even remotely related came up. Now feel free to address my list.

[Bluefront]

Heh....I didn't think clinton supporters would believe any of it, even though there's all these unanswered questions, all those dead bodies. And I'm not a big fan of BushII.....way too liberal for me. But the alternative in the last two presidential elections was not even close to acceptable for any conservative voter, no matter how he felt about Bush.

Look.....clinton was a liar all his life. Sad that some people bought into it....he sure has fooled many people. That Slick Willey.....who never had sex with "that woman".

[aristide1]

aristide1.....I'm sure you realize these are not just random people who died.

Neither are the innocents that have died in Iraq on both sides, care to guess which body count is higher? Oh I forget you deny such thoughts.

Heh....I didn't think clinton supporters would believe any of it, even though there's all these unanswered questions, all those dead bodies. And I'm not a big fan of BushII.....way too liberal for me. But the alternative in the last two presidential elections was not even close to acceptable for any conservative voter, no matter how he felt about Bush.

Look.....clinton was a liar all his life. Sad that some people bought into it....he sure has fooled many people. That Slick Willey.....who never had sex with "that woman".

The typical complete dismissal of all republican wrongs stands as a tribute to your wisdom.