TLC 911/pres Bush

[firemanpat29]

Did anyone watch the learning channel documentary on
Pres. Bush that aired on 9-11-03 ? It was very positive
and seemed very honest.I would not want to think of how
slick willy or al would have handled them selves. It started
with the way Mr Bush recieved the news while in a room full
of children and went from there. I dont know when they will
air it again but it is worth 2 hrs of your time in my opinion.

[captstanm1]

If it was titled "DC 09/11" or something similar....I watched it.. It was on Showtime/showcase down here...

I have to agree with you.

[backdraft663]

I watched bits and pieces of it, along with the other 9-11 related shows showing last evening. I also have to agree with firemanpat29 post.

[firemanpat29]

Cap. I saw that one too, with actors. the one last night
was filmed live with interviews with Pres Bush

[Weruj1]

I watched it and it was/is amazing to know how intricate the Presidential operation was that day.

[mcaldwell]

Originally posted by firemanpat29
I would not want to think of how slick willy or al would have handled them selves.

C'mon, you're kidding yourself if you think it would have been any different. When have you ever seen a president jump out of his chair and scream "the sky is falling." His staff, the Secret Service, etc, all have systems in place to respond to every conceivable incident, and the president could have hiden in his closet for the first 8 hours and it would have gone down exactly the same. It is the spin doctors that ensure Bush gets credit for "managing" the incident.

As for Dubya's response. I'm far from willing to call it a success right now. Your country (and us by default) may very well be mired in the early stages of an un-winable conflict with no real plan, and after looking at his latest popularity polls, unless Bush figures this thing out pretty quickly he might not be around for a second term to finish what he started.

To sum it up, I'm hoping for the best, but fearing the worst right now. :(

[DaSharkie]

Your country (and us by default) may very well be mired in the early stages of an un-winable conflict with no real plan

Ah yes, the new Vietnam. Actually, most people seem to understand that the war was not magically over on May 1st when the President spoke. No one ever said it was going to be easy either. Sadly, we will lose many more great men and women, and I humbled by their sacrifice for me, but I feel it is necessary. I sit here on the verge of trying to re-join the military myself, so I do not sit here and armchair quarterback.

What is sad, is that people's attitudes are not well founded. How many hundreds or thousand's of troops were killed after the end of hostilities in World War I, or II? Japanes troops still lived on Guam adn Saipan into the 60's believing the war was still going. If anyone thought that we were just going to walk in, find Saddam on the first day and the country will just fall into line then they are sorely mistaken and dumber than the average dust mite. It can be won, and will be. It will be a long road, but that was told to everyone and we seem to have collectively forgotten that. Again, showing our own stupidity and ignorance.

As for a plan, plans last until the first round is fired, then it's out the window. We took the country in less than a couple of weeks with few casualties, Does everything work well? No. In the North, where the Kurds live, things are actually going wuite well and there has been little violence. The majority of the deaths appear to be happening in a few small areas of the country where loyalty is the strongest. Will it be easy? No, but it will happen. After 30 years of totalitarian rule and oppression, you cannot simply give ideas of democracy or a republic cannot just simply be implanted into 20 or 30 million people on a whim.

after looking at his latest popularity polls, unless Bush figures this thing out pretty quickly he might not be around for a second term to finish what he started

For every poll taht says this, there is one that says otherwise. Polls are al about who sponsors them, because that is all about how the questions are worded. I take polls with a couple hundred grains of salt.

Personally, I am a Republican. The major problem that I have with President Bush is his environmental policies. I am not a radical tree hugger, but I do feel that we need to be protectors of it and the President has recinded many rules and regulations that were not the best thing to do.

The economy is a self correcting mechanism, every ten years, for one reason or another, the bottom falls out and we go through this. It always corrects itself and we prosper again. Presidential policies, other than tax cuts, historically have little bearing on recovery of financial matters. Does it stink to lose a job - yo ubet. I was laid off from a fire department myself so I know from whence I speak. Stop whining, pick up, and drive on. It is not the end of the world.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by mcaldwell


C'mon, you're kidding yourself if you think it would have been any different. When have you ever seen a president jump out of his chair and scream "the sky is falling." His staff, the Secret Service, etc, all have systems in place to respond to every conceivable incident, and the president could have hiden in his closet for the first 8 hours and it would have gone down exactly the same. It is the spin doctors that ensure Bush gets credit for "managing" the incident.

As for Dubya's response. I'm far from willing to call it a success right now. Your country (and us by default) may very well be mired in the early stages of an un-winable conflict with no real plan, and after looking at his latest popularity polls, unless Bush figures this thing out pretty quickly he might not be around for a second term to finish what he started.

To sum it up, I'm hoping for the best, but fearing the worst right now. :(

What we are dealing with here, is a demonstrable lack of knowledge and understanding of the US political situation. This usually results from getting your information off the television in 45 second snippets, instead of researching an issue before one speaks.

Let's look at this post in detail.

1. Clinton is a thief, a rapist and a compulsive liar. His response to the 9/11 attacks would have been one of generating a legacy, not one of what is best for the country. All one would have to look at is his "wag the dog' response to his impeachment and grnd jury appearances to understand how he would have responded. Gore is one of the most wishy-washy, indecisive people in government. This would not only have been about him, but about the people he surrounded himself with. Despite the fact that he spent time in the military (he was a reporter), he is anti-military, as evidenced by his voting record. What would have happened under his watch would have been disastrous. There would have been no beefing up of our defenses, no air cover and no Dept. of Homeland Defense. His administration would have ultimately blamed us for the attacks and our response would have been one of social aid, not one of kicking someone's ass.

2. Pres. Bush is a God-fearing, decent Christian MAN. His response since Day One has been of one of protecting the interests of this country. He has surrounded himself with solid people (Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Tom Ridge, etc). They make decisions that will not necessarily be popular, but will best serve the interests of the people of the US. He is also going to make sure that, not only Al-Queda, but members of terrorist groups worldwide pay a significant price. He is also a comforting force here, as well. Despite the slanted polls sponsored by liberal media outlets, most people feel a sense of security with Pres. Bush at the helm.

3. "...us by default..." Now here's a gem. We have discussed on this board several times the "contributions" of the Canadian government to the war on terror. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what I see as the Canadian government contribution is: a) a token military response that was provided unwillingly at best, b) apathy on the part of your government on the issue of domestic security (how much money are you spending up there? how are your immigration policies changing to prevent terrorists to enter? how is your airport security doing?). c) a constant anti-American attitude from your government and from one of your provinces. Did I miss anything? There are many Americans who would be willing to let your government go it alone. Forget the US. We'll pull our military bases out. Pretend we're not here. If it weren't for the US, Canada would be like Iceland.

4. Pres. Bush's poll numbers are down. True. But that is a normal course of events. Prior to next Nov., the economic indicators will continue to improve, the true story about the iraqi's WMD will come out, Hussein and OBL will both be captured or killed and this country will remain as strong as ever. He will win 4 more years.

[jsdobson]

Well said Mr Wendt.

[FireLt1951]

George,

WELL SAID, I completely agree with your assesment.

DaSharkie,

You're absolutely right about the 10 year cycle. The only reason Clinton had an excellent economic boom was the because of the beginning of the Tech Sector within the economy and the .Coms, which most disappeared before 2001 began.

Employment is always the last sector to gain back its losses, so that too will come around.
The Tech sector will begin to pick up now because most companies will have to upgrade their systems now after the Y2K scare. It's been almost 5 years and the systems need upgrading. Then after the upgrading it will slow down.

I got out of the market, March 2000, just before the downslide began and stayed out until now. I went back in when I felt that the market had basically bottomed out. I've been back in since October 2002 and I've done well. The market will get stronger and should stay valued at where it should be and not WAY overvalued as it was in the mid to late 90's.

One question for all of you.

How many people here have ever been called by a pollster. I know that in over 32 years of being a voter, I never have.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

How many people here have ever been called by a pollster. I know that in over 32 years of being a voter, I never have.

I was once, around 1992. The interesting thing was how slanted the questions were towards answers that were favorable towards the Dem candidates. There was also no way to deviate from the stock answers.

I could design a poll which would show the US public with a generally favorable impression of Hitler if I wanted to.

[mcaldwell]

Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
3. "...us by default..." Now here's a gem. We have discussed on this board several times the "contributions" of the Canadian government to the war on terror. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what I see as the Canadian government contribution is: a) a token military response that was provided unwillingly at best, b) apathy on the part of your government on the issue of domestic security (how much money are you spending up there? how are your immigration policies changing to prevent terrorists to enter? how is your airport security doing?). c) a constant anti-American attitude from your government and from one of your provinces. Did I miss anything? There are many Americans who would be willing to let your government go it alone. Forget the US. We'll pull our military bases out. Pretend we're not here. If it weren't for the US, Canada would be like Iceland.

OK, I'll deal with the important one first.

You accuse me of lack of knowledge and understanding of the American political situation, well I can clearly accuse you of the same in regards to our Canadian position.

You ask about our contribution to the "war on terror", and I can say with certainty, that as a historical percentage, we have more troops committed to peacekeeping and coalition operations today than ever before in our countries history. We may not be on the front lines, of the "war", but we are indeed in Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf, and everywhere else we are needed. Our numbers may pale in comparison to the US and Britian, but don't forget you are 10 times our size, and you should be expected to provide the numbers and technology.

As for the "apathy" in regards to homeland security, once again you oversimplify the issue. First I must remind you that the geographical size of our country is much larger than the US, and our population and tax base is miniscule by comparison. It is impossible to provide homeland security at the same scale that your nation does. And secondly, we don't need to. Canada dropped the idea of being a "Big Stick" power decades ago, and as a result we do not walk around with a target on our back. We have chosen the right to invest in social programs, and that is our right just as much as it is yours to build stealth bombers. And having just flew cross country, I assure you our airport security is higher than it has ever been.

You talk about an anti-american attitude, and that statement is clearly false. You have seen a few televised soundbites from idiot politicians, and I have seen the same south of the border. The more accurate statement could be Anti-Bush attitude. And he invited that one shortly after his inauguration when he snubbed Canada and called Mexico the US' most valuable partner. Add to that his unilateral decision to wage war on half the world, and that is what we don't like about him. He was raised a Texan, lived his life in the south and had never even visited most of the northern US states before becoming president. I assure you a visit to Canada would clarify our position on Americans. I see thousands of Americans pass through our resort every year, and they all rave about how well they are received up here.

And you'll pull your bases out?? Just how many bases do you think you have here? You have a small NATO Command presence in a few Canadian bases, and we still maintain a few DEW stations together, but I can assure you, in my military days I visited almost every major base in Canada, and I can count the number of American Serviceman I've met on one hand. There are no countries in the world (besides the US of course) that could mount an intercontinental invasion anymore, so we really aren't concerned about the protection racket you've been selling. Economically, we are a G7 country, and we could do quite well on our own if that is what it came to. The health of the US economy is just as reliant on Canada as Canada's is on the US.

If really want to comment on Canada's place in the world, by all means come on up and see what we are about first. At least read a few Canadian newspapers, because lord knows we Canadians are innundated with your opinion. I've never met an American (in person) who didn't love the place and the people, and lately I've seen more pro-Canadian press in the US media than opinions against.

We've disagreed as nations before, and we'll certainly do it again. That's what being neighbours is all about. At the end of the day we still stand with you as much as our economy, military, and political ideals will allow, and it is unreasonable to expect more.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Here we go...

Here's what's most important to me. I have been to Canada. I love Canada, too. I have friends and professional acquaintances from Nova Scotia to Alberta. My personal experience with Canadians has been completely positive. I have found them to be far more friendly and genuine than most Americans.

My post clearly stated that I was talking about your government. Here are indisputable facts:

1. Your government refused to commit military assets to support the US in the war on terror. The Canadian military that is there, is there on various exchange missions and commitments that pre-dated the war on terror. There isn't one soldier or one plane that is over there because of us.

2. You're right. Your government doesn't HAVE TO provide as much national defense as we do. Because you know we will do it for you. It's like the little kid hiding behind his big brother. It's not impossible to provide the same amount of security. Your government knows that any terrorist entering your country is only headed here, so let us catch him at our border. Your government will continue to spend money on a huge social experiment that is arguably not working.

3. Your government, from the PM down to the woman who called Pres. Bush an "idiot" has clearly and consistently exhibited an anti-US attitude since the war on terror has begun. Maybe they didn't say it when Clinton was Pres. But after all, he is a socialist, too. If 9/11 had happened under his watch (God forbid), the response from the Canadian government would have been exactly the same.

4. Mexico is probably a more important neighbor than Canada. Many of our corporations have plants there. There are many goods we use every day manufactured there. They simply are more important to the US economy.

5. I think if you check a map, Afghanistan and Iraq do not constitute "half the world".

6. I am not talking about just pulling our military bases out (I think our air base in Newfoundland is a teensy-weensy bit bigger than a NATO Command presence). I'm talking about cutting Canada off. Let you go at it alone. The Canadian economy would collapse and your government would begin to build a legacy similar to France's...one of dependence and embarrasment. Face facts, Canada needs the US way more than we need Canada.

7. It is not unreasonable to expect Canada to support our efforts fully and militarily. We provide most of your national defense. It is the least your government could do.

[PAVolunteer]

Wow ... even I've learned to not engage George in a fact-based argument. I thought everyone had learned that by now.

Stay Safe

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by PAVolunteer
Wow ... even I've learned to not engage George in a fact-based argument. I thought everyone had learned that by now.

Stay Safe

YEah, in an emotional, insult based argument, it's 50/50.

[Ohiovolffemtp]

Gee, I can't see it as 50/50 at all. My money is on the cop from the New York suburbs.....

[stm4710]

Good work George. Mcadwell,watching CNN does not mean you have degree in politcal science.....nit wit.

[captstanm1]

Amen George.....You are right on Target!

[RspctFrmCalgary]

Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI

[B]My post clearly stated that I was talking about your government. Here are indisputable facts:

1. Your government refused to commit military assets to support the US in the war on terror. The Canadian military that is there, is there on various exchange missions and commitments that pre-dated the war on terror. There isn't one soldier or one plane that is over there because of us.

George, George, George :(

I'm disappointed.

Read this link and you will see your "indisputable facts" are indeed disputable. Browse through the site and you might learn something. :D

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=490

Think we all covererd the "poll" thing already in the WAR on IRAQ threads :p

[MalahatTwo7]

George, you and I rarely disagree on most topics, but this is going to be one of those times.

September 12, 2001:
The UN Security Council issued Resolution 1368, condemning the attacks of September 11, offering deepest sympathy to the American people, and reaffirming the right of member nations (expressed in Article 51 of the UN Charter) to individual and collective self-defence. It also urged the world community to suppress terrorism and hold accountable all who aid, support or harbour the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of terrorist acts, and stated that the UN was prepared to combat all forms of terrorism.

**HMCS VANCOUVER (West Coast Navy) was at sea as part of a training exercise with other Canadian ships, she was also "Ready Duty Ship" meaining she was designated as the First Response ship for SAR, disaster relief or any other urgent task. Sept 11, she was ordered to the Puget Sound (mmm American waters???) to aid the USCG in protection of territorial waters. These are not Canadian territorial waters I am referring to. Rumours abound that she will be the Go To ship preparing for the Gulf.**

September 20, 2001:
Minister of National Defence Art Eggleton authorized more than 100 CF members serving on military exchange programs in the U.S. and other allied nations to participate in operations conducted by their host units in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

**These are ground troops that have been ordered up. Mostly officers doing a recce run**

September 28, 2001:
The UN Security Council issued Resolution 1373, setting out the methods by which member states were to root out terrorists and terrorist organizations, and deprive terrorists of the funds and materials necessary to conduct their operations.

October 8, 2001:
Minister Eggleton announced the first CF commitments under Op APOLLO, which involved about 2,000 CF members. Navy ships were the first CF units to participate in the campaign against terrorism, and they began deploying immediately.

**HMCS VILLE DE QUEBEC, PRESERVER, and CHARLEOTTOWN are enroute to the Gulf, VANCOUVER is still 'on hold'.**

Chronology of Ship Deployments
October 8, 2001-February 11, 2002: HMCS Halifax

December 5, 2001-May 27, 2002: HMCS Toronto

September 4, 2001-March 4, 2002: HMCS Charlottetown

October 17, 2001-April 27, 2002: HMCS Iroquois, HMCS Preserver

November 12, 2001-May 28, 2002: HMCS Vancouver (W)

February 17-August 17, 2002: HMCS Ottawa (W)

March 23-October 14, 2002: HMCS Algonquin (W)

May 1-November 14, 2002: HMCS St. John's

May 22-October 21, 2002: HMCS Protecteur (W)

September 9, 2002-April 2, 2003: HMCS Montreal

September 16, 2002-April 7, 2003: HMCS Winnipeg (W)

February 2-May 19, 2003: HMCS Regina (W)

February 24-July 5, 2003: HMCS Iroquois

March 5-Aug 4, 2003: HMCS Fredericton

August 1, 2003-present: HMCS Calgary (W) The (W) depicts West Coast ships.)

**HMCS VANCOUVER gets 'firm' orders to sail, the hunt for the elusive crew begins. On 15 Oct, I get my orders to join the ship, to be ready for sea NLT 22 Oct. Deployment orders are for 29 Oct, for San Diego, to join the STENNIS BATTLE GROUP and 'intigrate'. **

We were the first of the West Coast ships in theater, and we also hold the "distinction"??? of making the longest record for modern day war ship at sea, without touching land. We sailed from Singapore 15 December 2001 and did not go alongside again until 8 March 2002. I have the coin that was minted to 'commemorate' that historical point in my life. I paid for that trip with more than just missing out on my oldest boys 3rd birthday, we arrived in SD the day after. I no longer have my family because of some JERK who had a bone to pick with the world. "Thank You MR Bin Laden".{I know I am not the only one who lost time with or entire families; there are more out there than I will ever know of.}

We went because it was our job, we went because it was something we belived in, we went because we all thought that maybe our presence would make for safer world for our children. Some of for all those reasons, some were more cavilier about it.. the money, the 'adventure' ....

However, George we do agree on something... POLITICIANS SUCK!! And most days wish we could dispence with them all. I dont think I have rant on any more about our Man Cretin. (and yes the mis-spelling was intended)

[Anyway]

Oh man..... if we get into it with Canada - does that mean that the borders will close??? Will I have to DEFECT instead of legally immigrate?????????????

Oh 26!!!! Get the attic ready, I might have to hide!!!

[mcaldwell]

OK George, I'm going to toss a few of my "facts" into the ring to counter what are clearly your opinion or perception.

Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
My post clearly stated that I was talking about your government. Here are indisputable facts:

1. Your government refused to commit military assets to support the US in the war on terror. The Canadian military that is there, is there on various exchange missions and commitments that pre-dated the war on terror. There isn't one soldier or one plane that is over there because of us.

A common perception, but wrong! We didn't commit front line assets to the invasion of Iraq because we couldn't spare them. We are stretched beyond thin right now, and we would have had to usurp our responsibilities elsewhere in order to contribute. We are, and were in Afghanistan with everything we could spare. We conducted extensive operations from day 1 to now, and we are currently deployed heavily in Kandahar for the peacekeeping aspect. You might also want to ask that US Special Forces platoon from Afghanistan who had their Asses saved by a Canadian sniper about our presence during early operations.

And my younger brother just returned from the Gulf of Oman where they spent six months boarding and searching ship to apprehend Taliban and other escaping terrorists. So when you say we are not contributing, it is you who have your facts wrong.

2. You're right. Your government doesn't HAVE TO provide as much national defense as we do. Because you know we will do it for you. It's like the little kid hiding behind his big brother. It's not impossible to provide the same amount of security. Your government knows that any terrorist entering your country is only headed here, so let us catch him at our border. Your government will continue to spend money on a huge social experiment that is arguably not working.

The cold war is over, and as I mentioned previously, there is no credible military threat to our nation. The argument that the cost of our social programs is the dismantling of our military is right, but that’s the choice we’ve made. Our “experiment” is only a few decades old, and we will not know if it will work or not for many years. On the flip side to that coin, America has been the dominant military power for several decades now as well, yet the world has still not become this beautiful utopia under their gleaming presence. You have still to prove to us that your “experiment” is any better.

3. Your government, from the PM down to the woman who called Pres. Bush an "idiot" has clearly and consistently exhibited an anti-US attitude since the war on terror has begun. Maybe they didn't say it when Clinton was Pres. But after all, he is a socialist, too. If 9/11 had happened under his watch (God forbid), the response from the Canadian government would have been exactly the same.

Regardless of how I feel about Chretien, he has never called Bush a Moron. He has spoken his mind in the sidelines and expressed his concern about Bush’s direction with the war, but that is his right. We cannot be expected to march blindly into whatever conflict Junior wants to start. And regarding Clinton’s presidency your right, he was a “socialist”, or “liberal”, or however you want to label it, and it only stands to reason that we will get along better with an administration whose goals are aligned with ours. We are always going to be wary of a Hawkish gov’t, and that is nothing unusual in this type of relationship.

4. Mexico is probably a more important neighbor than Canada. Many of our corporations have plants there. There are many goods we use every day manufactured there. They simply are more important to the US economy.

Again you are wrong with your facts. The US imports far more raw material and goods from Canada than any other nation on the planet. You have more corporations here than in Mexico, and more dollars transfer between our countries than any other trading partener. We have a MUTUALLY beneficial relationship, and you would definitely suffer if our trade relationship collapsed.

5. I think if you check a map, Afghanistan and Iraq do not constitute "half the world".

Perhaps not, but a nation invariably draws it’s neighbors into any conflict, and if you add in North Korea to the picture, the sum of China, India, Pakistan, Australia, and the entire Middle East comes pretty close.

6. I am not talking about just pulling our military bases out (I think our air base in Newfoundland is a teensy-weensy bit bigger than a NATO Command presence). I'm talking about cutting Canada off. Let you go at it alone. The Canadian economy would collapse and your government would begin to build a legacy similar to France's...one of dependence and embarrasment. Face facts, Canada needs the US way more than we need Canada.

What base are you talking about? There is no independent US base in southern Canada that I am aware of. You have forces and resources in several of our bases for the sake of training and NATO, and likewise we have forces on many American bases for the same reason.

7. It is not unreasonable to expect Canada to support our efforts fully and militarily. We provide most of your national defense. It is the least your government could do.

Again with the National Defense argument. You are beating a dead horse with that one.

We are a country of barely 30 million people. We may look big on a map, but we are sparsely populated in comparison to any other G7 nation. As a matter of fact, Afghanistan has the same population as Canada, and they are geographically smaller than any one of our central provinces.

Our social agenda is just as much a necessity as it is a choice. If we didn’t spend this money on building up our infrastructure, we would not be able to grow. You cannot get a Doctor to move up to Churchill Manitoba without some kind of gov’t incentives. We must use these programs, combined with aggressive immigration to build our rural population to the point that it can begin to support it’s own local infrastructure. We do our best in regards to screening immigrants, but when you need 400,000 a year to maintain growth, some bad apples are bound to get through. Don’t forget, the 18 - 9/11 hijackers immigrated, educated, and operated in the US for years before the attack. Your system has as many holes as ours does.

As for the support, we have supported you in the past when we could, and we still do today. We are not a military power, and we cannot in good conscience march blindly to war just because Dubya says so. We are two soveriegn nations, and we will inevitably disagree. I would only hope that we can respect each others interests and opinions when we do.

[mcaldwell]

Originally posted by stm4710
Good work George. Mcadwell,watching CNN does not mean you have degree in politcal science.....nit wit.

Thanks for that personal attack stm. Your intelligent, educated, and enlightened response has really added value to this discussion.

[Weruj1]

All I am sayin is I am with PA !!!! got popcorn ?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

You know what? I had a long (I'm talking long) response to the viewpoints of mcaldwell and my "wife" all prepared. But I did not post it. It served no purpose.

I stand by my opinions, but I am going to bow out gracefully at this time due to the fact that nothing good will come from this thread. Hopefully, we are all (me included) mature enough to agree to disagree and to unite on our agreements (politicians suck).

[Duffman]

Boy am I sorry I missed this one. I wish I could have gotten in before George bowed out.

mcaldwell, if you haven't noticed, George is completely blinded by ideology. If it doesn't come from a conservative, it must be a lie.

I agree with you that the initial response would have been the same regardless of who the president was.

George isn't interested in fact. He refers to Clinton as a rapist. When was he convicted of rape?

By his own logic, Pres. Bush is a drunk. After all he was convicted of DUI in Maine.

He was right about one thing though. This thread will go nowhere because he and other Bush kool-aid drinkers won't accept anything but the company line.

[mcaldwell]

Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
Hopefully, we are all (me included) mature enough to agree to disagree and to unite on our agreements (politicians suck).

We certainly can agree on that one. ;) :D

[Duffman]

I need to clarify my last post. I don't want it to appear that I am attacking George. He and I clearly do not agree on many things when it comes to politics. We have however debated maturely and I respect his knowledge in many areas. We have even agreed on a few things.

Sorry if my post appeared personal.

Duff

[PAVolunteer]

Conviction? No ... but it sure makes you wonder ...

ALL THE EX-PRESIDENT'S SCANDALS
Nurse backs up
Clinton rape charge
Attended Broaddrick's wounds after alleged assault in Arkansas

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 26, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

In her first radio interview, the woman who nursed the wounds of Juanita Broaddrick shortly after an alleged sexual assault by Bill Clinton, says she remains convinced the ex-president is a rapist.

"Every time I talk about this, it still makes me upset," said Norma Rogers Kelsey, in an interview with talk show host Bob Enyart of KGOV in Denver.

Kelsey's interview, broadcast in two parts, last night and tonight, comes after Broaddrick repeated her charge on national television amid the release of Hillary Clinton's new book, which essentially ignored the accusation.

Kelsey, 49, is now a wife and mother of six children, living in Tulsa, Okla.

As WorldNetDaily reported, Broaddrick, a former nursing home administrator in Van Buren, Ark., told Sean Hannity of Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes program last Wednesday Clinton sexually assaulted her in 1978 while he was attorney general of Arkansas.

Known as "Jane Doe No. 5" in Kenneth Starr's impeachment report to Congress, Broaddrick had filed an affidavit in the Paula Jones case, at first denying Clinton had made any unwelcome sexual advances to her. But she later claimed to investigators for independent counsel Starr she was raped.

Kelsey, who then worked for Broaddrick as a nurse, said they went together to the American College of Nursing Home Administrators convention at the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock, Ark., in April 1978.

Broaddrick had been invited to call Clinton's gubernatorial campaign office when she arrived in town to talk about volunteering, recalls Kelsey, who was 25 at the time.

"We thought it was going to be an exciting thing to work on his campaign," Kelsey said. "He was a charismatic young man – a person we felt like was definitely going some place."

Nothing other than a meeting

Clinton told Broaddrick because of his stature, it would be difficult to meet in the coffee shop and suggested they talk in a room.

"She had no reason to think that there would be anything else other than a meeting involved," Kelsey said.

Kelsey went to the convention's scheduled event, while Broaddrick contacted Clinton.

When Kelsey returned to the hotel lobby, she called Broaddrick's room to find out how the meeting went.

"I just remember being on the phone with her … and she was very upset," Kelsey recalls. "She said come to the room, we have to go back to Van Buren."

When Kelsey arrived in the room, she found Broaddrick's "lip was all swollen and very puffed out, and she was putting ice on it."

"She appeared to me to almost be in a shocked state," Kelsey said.

She believes Broaddrick's contention that the sexual contact was not consensual.

"If it had been some planned escapade she would have told me," she said. "We were close enough friends that she would have told me."

Kelsey recalls Broaddrick saying the meeting with Clinton began with small talk, and "she was a little surprised he was by himself."

"She said he was showing her locations outside the window there in Little Rock, and then, all of a sudden, he just kind of grabbed her and started kissing her," remembers Kelsey.

"He overtook her and pushed her to the bed, and from that point on it was just a rape."

Kelsey says Broaddrick explained how her lip became swollen: "He bit her lip to try to keep her from struggling with him."

Enyart asked if Broaddrick used the term "rape."

"Yes, she was so upset that she had allowed that to happen," Kelsey said. "She was afraid that this … would ruin her business. That's why she made me promise not to tell anyone."

Broaddrick said when Clinton made advances, she told him she couldn't do this. Though she was a married woman, she was in love with another man, David Broaddrick, who later became her husband.

Enyart commented: "She might have thought that would cause him to back up, but that was like adding fuel to the fire. If she was willing to have an affair with a married man … ."

"Right," Kelsey replied, "and I think that was a lot of the reason why she didn't want anything divulged. She was wrapped up in guilt thinking she might have deserved this."

Kelsey said on the two-hour drive back to Van Buren, Broaddrick "was just beating herself up over the fact that she could have been so stupid."

Over the next couple of days, Clinton tried to contact Broaddrick, she said.

"She told me he had tried to reach her," Kelsey said, "but she did not want to speak to him."

Cause for revenge?

Kelsey did not share her story with any media until 1999 when Broaddrick gave her first televised interview, taped in February during the Senate impeachment trial by NBC's news program Dateline but broadcast in March.

The New York Times said one of the reasons NBC delayed airing the Broaddrick interview was because a personal fact about Kelsey had given them pause.

In 1980, the man who killed Kelsey's father was made eligible for parole by Clinton, who at the time was lame-duck governor of Arkansas.

"People thought I was out to get Clinton," she said, noting a news report that questioned her motives.

"Our family was very upset he did that, but I would never ever accuse or tell a story like that about some one for that reason," she said. "My father was gone anyway."

Another encounter

Kelsey said she happened to be with Broaddrick again at a nursing home meeting in Little Rock in 1990 when Clinton aides called her to come with them.

When she returned to Kelsey, Broaddrick said: "You won't believe what just happened."

"They took her out of meeting, down this hallway at the hotel in Little Rock, and there he was," Kelsey said, referring to Clinton. "He told her he apologized and asked if she could forgive him, and if there was any way he could to make it up to her for what had happened."

Broaddrick told Clinton he could "go to hell."

One year later, when Clinton announced he was running for president, Broaddrick said "now she knew why he apologized," according to Kelsey.

Kelsey, who since had gone to work as a nurse at a steel mill in Arkansas, recalls Broaddrick calling her to let her know a colleague in the nursing home business, Phillip Yoakum, was pressing for the story to be publicized. "She said, Norma, please do not contact anyone. If anyone contacts you, please tell them you don't know anything."

The New York Times called her at home, she said, "and I told them I had no comment."

When lawyers for Paula Jones came to Broaddrick in an attempt to corroborate Clinton's style of behavior, Broaddrick denied she had made the charge.

But Broaddrick's son, a lawyer, warned her against lying to a federal grand jury, and she decided to tell the story.

Kelsey was then paid a visit by the FBI.

"It was very scary," she said. "I had the FBI come to my home here in Oklahoma and sit me down and make me corroborate stories they had been hearing."

When the FBI came, you told them the truth? Enyart asked.

"Absolutely," Kelsey said.

Enyart read through a list of other incidents in which women claimed Clinton forced himself on them sexually.

"It's appalling," Kelsey said, "when you read he's going to get a big talk show on TV, and it just makes me sick."

After Broaddrick made her charge public, Enyart organized nearly 150 protests, following Clinton wherever he appeared around the country, and even internationally, with signs declaring, "I believe Juanita."

The talk show host and pastor of Denver Bible Church says he plans to hold a week of protest-related events in Little Rock when the Clinton library opens to ensure the media will not ignore Broaddrick's accusation.

Kelsey said she agreed with Enyart that the media has given Clinton a pass.

"It's a sad story," she said, "and it's very sad when you are part of it and you feel like there is not anything you can say or do to change things."

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Well then I guess the rumors about our current presidents alledged cocaine use should be discussed. Clinton was a disgrace/scumbag, but I am not ready to elevate George W. to sainthood just yet.

[Duffman]

As WorldNetDaily reported, Broaddrick, a former nursing home administrator in Van Buren, Ark., told Sean Hannity of Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes program last Wednesday Clinton sexually assaulted her in 1978 while he was attorney general of Arkansas.

I agree that Clinton has issues when it comes to women, but lets look a little deeper.

Remember Troopergate? The Arkansas state troopers who swore that they set Clinton up with women or were present, and aided in Clinton setting up encounters. When it came out that they were paid to tell the story by a conservative activist they suddenly didn't have much too say about the topic.

I am not calling anyone a liar here, but WorldNetDaily and Sean Hannity are stauchly conservative. Hannity's own book is full of factual errors as it pertains to his liberal bashing. Don't believe me, look here:http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020826.html It would come as no surprise that they would run with a story without FULLY investigating its validity as long as the subject is a democrat.

I agree with Mikey. Shall we drudge up all of the Presidents indescretions?

What about that DUI in Maine?

Why are record of SEC investigations into his bankrupt companies unavailable?

What about his relationship to Ken Lay?

I could go on but won't for brevity's sake.

Lie about getting a blow job.....face impeachment

Lie in order to justify a war....well, that must be okay

By the way, why is it that right windbags still rely on Clinton bashing. Aren't there nine or so Democrats actually pursuing the presidency they should be focusing on?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by Duffman
I need to clarify my last post. I don't want it to appear that I am attacking George. He and I clearly do not agree on many things when it comes to politics. We have however debated maturely and I respect his knowledge in many areas. We have even agreed on a few things.

Sorry if my post appeared personal.

Duff

Yours was a COMPLETELY personal attack. An unprovoked personal attack, I might add.

[DaSharkie]

By the way, why is it that right windbags still rely on Clinton bashing.

Because he is constantly touted by "left windbags" as a great President. There are many errors and problems in everyone's past, unfortunately, people on both sides of the aisle who can't accept it that some 15 or 20 year old youngster isn't thinking about becoming President when he shoplifts or smokes a bone ( not condoning either one. ) As for President Bush's D.U.I., I don't recall he ever denied it. true, he never brought it up, but he didn't have to, whereas Mr. Clinton outright lied about it, to me, his employer, a citizen of this great country. And no, I am not naive enough to think that any politician tells the truth 100% of the time.

Well then I guess the rumors about our current presidents alledged cocaine use should be discussed.

Again, never denied. Never brought up either, but I am sure there are things in everyone's past that we do not bring up at parties or even to own spouses - for whatever reason. At least he didn't say he never inhaled and made himself a laughing stock.

This thread will go nowhere because he and other Bush kool-aid drinkers won't accept anything but the company line.

I resent this as weel. I do not tow the "company line." I am a reasonably intelligent man who can make rational decisions for myself. I do not need to be told by the selfish politicians of any party what is right or wrong for me to think. I suppose that it is OK to take the Ted Kennedy kool-aid, or the Howard Dean Kool-aid though isn't it. I trust that you are a mature responsible adult yourself, quite capable of making your own decisions and not requiring your thoughts to be given to you by some politico. Please have the decency to respect others for their own differing beliefs and views, like it or not.

[Bones42]

....and back to the topic of this thread, the documentary was a good show. It was interesting to see the actions going on that most people were unaware of.

[Lewiston2Capt]

Doing my best Andy Rooney impression: Why is it that whenever we start talking about politics/politicians we end up getting into this same huge debate?

Thank you Bonesy for the attempt to get this thread back on topic. I dont think it is going to work though. Why dont we just add this to the topics that never end...

[firemanpat29]

Thanks bones for the effort. I did not want to stir
every one up. I just thought it was a good show.

[FireLt1951]

Remember, there are 2 subjects that will bring about a storm of controversial opinions that can be overwhelming and run the complete gambit. What are those 2 subjects? We've covered one so far.



:D

[MalahatTwo7]

**Shaking head* NNNOOO NNOOOOO not that one too. Not again. Please not again.

[TillerMan25]

I read the passage about Sean Hannity provided above. I must say, even though it is basically Liberal Bickering over Conservative Opinion, it was interesting reading and kinda makes ya think a bit.

I tend to lean more toward the Right, but do not toally disagree with everything the Left has to say. Particularly when it comes to Labor and Defense issues. Neither side will ever be completly right, I guess.

[captstanm1]

firelt1951.....hmmmmm...:confu sed: Would that be SB vs F (I could not bear to spell it out)?:eek:

Bones is right...this thread got way off target. It started as a discussion on a TV show and turned political. Seems some folks just like to stir the stew no matter what the subject

Can not beleive that I wasted my 3900th post on this....Darn it!

[mcaldwell]

** Members reserve the right to hijack an occasional unsuspecting thread and supplant it's contents with a good political scrum. Especially when said members live in remote locations surrounded by teenage hippies incapable of forming coherent sentences, or informed political opinions. ** ;) :D

So who wants to debate NAFTA? :eek:

[RspctFrmCalgary]

hehehe :D

[ThNozzleman]

Gee, I can't believe this thread got by me! George and I have banged heads on this issue before, of course. I think the war in Iraq was a big mistake and was waged for no reason other than control of the area and it's oil. The Bush administration ties to oil are well documented. No WMD have been found. There were no real ties to "terrorism" by Iraq's government. The chickens will come home to roost for Bush, I think...and soon.

[Duffman]

Yours was a COMPLETELY personal attack. An unprovoked personal attack, I might add.

Sorry George, I guess I came on a little strong. Of, course I it's not like I called you a rapist or anything. Just Kidding.

Apology offered,

Duff

[WVFDCap]

The question was asked why we (as conservatives) have not gotten beyond the former President Clinton. Here are three reasons why:

1. He (Clinton) cannot continue a time honored tradition of former Presidents not attacking his successors policies. He does this at every chance.

2. He is still in charge of the Democratic Party. Why else would Terry MacCauliff (ms?), Clinton's close friend, still be head of the DNC after their loss of the Senate and loss of seats in the House in '02?

3. Can you honestly say that the ten dwarfs running for the Democratic nod have much substance? All I hear them doing is calling President Bush names - no substance. If the Democratic ticket in '04 has Dean at the top, its going to be a landslide in Bush's favor close to that of Reagan's second election!

[Duffman]

3. Can you honestly say that the ten dwarfs running for the Democratic nod have much substance? All I hear them doing is calling President Bush names - no substance. If the Democratic ticket in '04 has Dean at the top, its going to be a landslide in Bush's favor close to that of Reagan's second election!

Have you attempted to do more than just listen to ten second sound bites on TV?

You want substance, look here:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer



http://www.draftclark2004.com/default.asp

www.johnkerry.com

That should get you started. All have links where the issues are discussed.

[FireLt1951]

Well lets see here. I did watch the program covering the original topic and found it interesting and now that this thread has gone in a different direction, what the H@#l.

I'm not a Democrat and I'm not a Republican, I consider myself an Independent although I tend to be a little right of center. I've watched and listened to the debates that have aired and have decided on one thing. I don't care for any of the present Democratic candidates or their platforms right now. I've heard no substance to their message what so ever.

I know one thing for sure. If Dean is chosen as the Democratic candidate, I'll have no alternative but to vote for President Bush. Dean is way to far left for my taste. The rest haven't impressed me yet with any type of vision for the future. Just an opinion and nothing more.

Capstann1,
No it's not SB vs F.;)
P vs R and it's not public relations :D