It Depends on What the Meaning of Lying is?

What exactly do you mean my tried to kill Bin Laden? What is the meaning of “tried to kill” What is the meaning of “ordered”, what is the meaning of life…

Is lying only lying when the whole thing is a lie or is it still a lie when only part of it is a lie, or is it only a lie if the lie is a lie. Wait, Bill says, it is only a lie, if I get caught on it later, until I get caught it is the truth. 

Wow, and people want Bill’s husband to be our next President, well then again, she does wear the pants in the family so maybe she will have the balls to get Bin Laden…

Another great lie for the Clinton legacy, and he has the nerve to criticize the current administration for not getting Bin Laden. The only difference between now and when he got caught lying over the Monica situation, is he was not under oath here so he cannot be charged with perjury, however it again shows where this mans values lie. I would have to imagine Hillary’s values are about the same as she is still with the biggest conman of White House.

 Atlas Shrugs Shocka! Bill Lied, Americans Died,  shows how the CIA contradicts Bill on air rant about how he tried to kill Bin Laden and had ordered the CIA to kill him.

Remember this fisk I did last year of Clinton’s headspinning tall tales of mendacious woe? Whaaaaaaaaa…. what a full of shitnik.

Don Surber lays out the lies here;

Bush Lied, People Died

Michael Isikoff, the reporter who broke the Monica Lewinsky story only to have his editors at Newsweek spike the story, has caught Bill Clinton in another lie: He never authorized the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Citing a recent CIA inspector general report, Isikoff and Mark Hosenball reported:

The report also criticized intelligence problems when Bill Clinton was president, detailing political and legal “constraints” agency officials felt in the late 1990s. In September 2006, during a famous encounter with Fox News anchor Wallace, Clinton erupted in anger and waived his finger when asked about whether his administration had done enough to get bin Laden. “What did I do? What did I do?” Clinton said at one point. “I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.


Clinton appeared to have been referring to a December 1999 Memorandum of Notification (MON) he signed that authorized the CIA to use lethal force to capture, not kill, bin Laden. But the inspector general’s report made it clear that the agency never viewed the order as a license to “kill” bin Laden—one reason it never mounted more effective operations against him. “The restrictions in the authorities given the CIA with respect to bin Laden, while arguably, although ambiguously, relaxed for a period of time in late 1998 and early 1999, limited the range of permissible operations,” the report stated. (Scheuer agreed with the inspector general’s findings on this issue, but said if anything the report was overly diplomatic. “There was never any ambiguity,” he said. “None of those authorities ever allowed us to kill anyone. At least that’s what the CIA lawyers told us.” A spokesman for the former president had no immediate comment.)


11 Responses

  1. There are lies and there are lies. I would submit that a lie that results in the unnecessary deaths of thousands and waste of a trillion and trashing US international credibility is worse than lying about sex (which most people do).

  2. A lie is a lie, regardless. What makes it worse is the man who held the highest position in the US government, lied under oath. The topic is a distracter used by the liberals to make it seem like it is nothing. The fact that Clinton lied under oath is a serious crime and a prime example of his moral values.
    And his lying now makes it even worse, as he claimed he tried to kill Bin Laden, even gave to the order to kill him, however he did not. The fact that he did not, is the reason so many are dead now. If he had given the order and had they been successful in the take down, which was a strong possibility considering there were times where Bin Laden’s exact whereabouts’ were known, then 9/11 would not have happened and everything since would not have happened. So Clinton’s lie is admission that he did nothing when he had opportunity, and thus all the death that has occurred since is a direct result of his inaction.
    As for the undertone reference to Bush having lied, it is unfounded. He had the same intel as everyone else in congress and they chose to let him execute military command. In order for Bush to be proven to have lied about things, he would have had to known the truth was something different. No evidence has been provided yet to determine this, only accusations that he lied. Had he lied, the liberal left would surely have been able to censure or impeach him, since they have not, they are obviously lacking any proof that he lied.
    As President of the US, to have lied to the public under oath, to have lied about past accomplishments/initiatives, is appalling and undermines the core of the Presidency and the Constitution of the United States.

  3. 1. Despite being born with advantages some people would kill for, GW Bush was a loser and a drifter with a drinking problem until he was 40. He was a serial failure in business until the Neocons propped him up as their front and got him into the largely ceremonial post of Texas Governor.

    2. Once the Neocons got GW Bush into the White House, the PNAC agenda came off the shelf.

    3. PNAC is the think tank of Neocons which included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, Bolton , Wolfowitz et al.

    4. PNAC went on record saying that :
    a. USA needed to be the dominant country in the 21st century
    b. the USA needed a massive military build-up and aggressive foreign policy.
    c. a catastrophic catalytic event -a new Pearl harbor to help their agenda go forward.

    5. The Iraq invasion was at the top of the Bush agenda from the very first cabinet meeting. Only Colin Powell prevented the invasion of iraq immediately after 9/11.

    6. Bush /Cheney lied us into the Iraq mess in order to carry out the agenda of PNAC.


    Clinton might have been flawed but GW Bush was one huge flaw.

  4. Right from the liberal handbook. Wow, so original. But again, not a shred of evidence proving Bush LIED, only accusations. The great big NeoCon Conspiracy theory the moonbats thrive on. Sorry but if any of #6 this was provable, then the liberals would have already had Bush impeached.
    As for Clinton, which the article is about, not Bush, HE FAILED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE and some might even suggest is the cause of 9/11.

  5. Not a SHRED? of evidnce? That’s what the “Dream Team” said of OJ’s guilt.

    GW Bush is every bit as innocent as OJ.

  6. Please share this evidence you have, and do not post speculation or try to draw inferences only, provide evidence.
    Additionally I find it humorous that you follow the liberal handbook so tightly, that you cannot even debate the contents of the article, without having to try to divert attention to Bush.

  7. Exhibit A

    The PNAC web site which advocated massive4 military build-up of military and aggressive foreign policy to establish the USA as the dominant nation in the 21st century

    Exhibit B

    Direct testimony by White House Insiders Paul O’ Neill and Richard A. Clark that said that invasion of Iraq was at the top of bush agenda from day one.

    Exhibit C

    Downing street memo (Which by it self would mean little)which said the Bush was going to invade Iraq no matter what and facts would be fixed.

    The constantly changing reasons for the invasion as the previous lies were disproven. = circumstantial evidence

  8. As I said, please provide evidence he lied. Everything you posted is speculation and you are trying to draw inferences. As I said before, please provide evidence that he lied, not that you think he lied. Unless you can do that, I am done spending time responding to these silly liberal posts with no substance just allegations that you hope if are repeated enough will become proof. Additionally quite posting the liberal handbook over and over again. It is old.
    Now can you actually debate the topic at hand, that Clinton lied about giving orders to kill Bin Laden?

  9. PNAC is not speculation Google it and you can read the exact words of its members and authors.

    O’Neill and Clark had beed in numerous previous GOP white Houses. They give direct tedsimony as to what happened in the Bush White House.

    Neither of these well documented facts is speculation.

  10. Again I ask can you actually debate the topic of this post or not.
    Additionally, your trying to assume those facts mean that Bush lied is Speculation. I did not say PNAC or its political philosopy was speculate, just how you are trying to use them.
    Again provide proof, you are getting stale. Repeat the same mantra over and over, Hillary will come save you.

    For the last time, can you debate that Bill lied about trying to kill Bin Laden? I didn’t think so.

  11. Uh, would you believe that basically all of GW Bush’s “advisors” were principle members of PNAC?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: