No announcement yet.

TLC 911/pres Bush

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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.

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

    Leave a comment:

  • 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?

    Leave a comment:

    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.

    Leave a comment:

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

    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."

    Leave a comment:

  • 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.


    Leave a comment:

  • 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.

    Leave a comment:

  • 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.

    Leave a comment:

  • 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).

    Leave a comment:

  • Weruj1
    All I am sayin is I am with PA !!!! got popcorn ?

    Leave a comment:

  • 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.

    Leave a comment:

  • 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.

    Leave a comment:

  • 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!!!

    Leave a comment:

  • 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)

    Leave a comment:

  • 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.


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

    Leave a comment:

  • captstanm1
    Amen George.....You are right on Target!

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)


Upper 300x250