and as i have already noted draginol, clinton's use of the word 'obsessed is obviously subjectively based upon his experience at the time and hardly relevant to the crux of that interview or this argument. moreover, that there is a denial that conservative's were opposed to his military action at the time has effectively been exposed by salon magazine:

www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/09/25/clinton_2/index.html

you yourself however continue to pedantically assert that clinton has made 'numerous blatantly false statements' and a 'bunch of claims that were not true'. what exactly are those false statements and claims draginol? your consistent inability to address the core issue of this thread other than unsubstantiated claims can but only leave one with the impression that not only are you intellectually lazy, but a hypocrite as well. now why does that feel like deja vu.

Most of this is conservative backpedaling as Mr. Bush sinks their party boat.

Find a member of either party who will STFU and take responsibility for ANYTHING. Katrina, Bin Ladin, Enron, and whatever else hides in the light of day.

So much identity tied up into your parties that the truth takes a backseat to membership.

Find a member of either party who will STFU and take responsibility for ANYTHING. Katrina, Bin Ladin, Enron, and whatever else hides in the light of day.

Enron had nothing to do with the republican party. What is there for them to take responsibility for?

"I did not have sex with Bin Laden"~ Bill Clinton, Fox News. ;~D

'Can you name ONE Republican who claimed Clinton was "obsessed" with getting Bin Laden.' draginol.

www.al-bab.com/yemen/artic/mei72.htm

it would appear there is one less 'blatantly false statement' and the subjective has become fact. which is nice, non?

it would appear there is one less 'blatantly false statement' and the subjective has become fact. which is nice, non?

Uh, your link and the quoted statement do not go together.  Would you care to take another shot at debunking Draginol?

'Uh, your link and the quoted statement do not go together. Would you care to take another shot at debunking Draginol?' dr guy.

au contraire dr guy i do need to take another shot at debunking draginol, when my previous reply (salon.com) explicitly shows that that there was considerable republican opposition towards clinton's military actions - in marked contrast to the recent revisionism that that post points out.

the robert oakley quote simply gives further indication that clinton's own claim has some basis in fact and is quite patently not a 'blatantly false statement', as has been asserted. to maintain a specificity of distinction is simply to miss the point of the argument and not a little anal retentive. which is perhaps why draginol did not respond himself.

au contraire dr guy i do need to take another shot at debunking draginol, when my previous reply (salon.com) explicitly shows that that there was considerable republican opposition towards clinton's military actions - in marked contrast to the recent revisionism that that post points out.

No it does not.  Perhaps you need a definition of parties?  That shows nothing about elected republicans.  Again, debate the point, not your opinion.

It also says nothing about Clinton being "obsessed" with getting Bin Laden.  It's just nonsense. He wasn't obsessed.

There was some grumbling -- in the media -- that Clinton's choice to lob missiles into Afghanistan just happened to be on the same day he was scheduled to testify about Lewinski.

So I ask again - name a single elected official from the Republican party that claimed Clinton was obsessed with Bin Laden.

 

'Can you name ONE Republican who claimed Clinton was "obsessed" with getting Bin Laden.' draginol. www.al-bab.com/yemen/artic/mei72.htm it would appear there is one less 'blatantly false statement' and the subjective has become fact. which is nice, non

Clarke a republican? If so, in name only. Read this

Link

Clarke didn't think Clinton was obsessed with Bin Laden. Quite the contrary. 

And Clinton was suggesting that it was congressional Republicans who argued he was "obsessed" with Bin Laden.

Feel free to find a quote from a Republican that argued he was obsessed with Bin Laden.

Interesting. The way you word this means you would only accept an argument if a Republican was directly quoted as saying he was obsessed with specifically Bin Laden. While that is more difficult to do based on the specificity of your request, you can see in the wider range that an argument is made by some Republicans that Clinton used the '98 strikes as a diversionary tactic and that the threat was trumped up (you'll see in some of the quotes linked that the lawmakers specifically mention 'Wag the Dog')

First an article showing that some Republicans agreed with Clinton and some didn't...
WP story from 98">Link,

A short list of lawmaker quotes can be found:
1st Link
2nd Link

In case you don't want to go through the links, I'll show a quote here.
GOP Sen. Dan Coats: Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack [on bin Laden] and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action."

Based on the evidence, you have to believe that there was an element of the GOP that believed that Clinton should not have attempted the strikes in 1998. Again referring to the 1st article, there was also a significant element of the GOP that supported Clinton's strikes against Bin Laden.

Gingrich dismissed any possibility that Clinton may have ordered the attacks to divert attention from the scandal. Instead, he said, there was an urgent need for a reprisal following the Aug. 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
"Anyone who watched the film of the bombings, anyone who saw the coffins come home knows better than to question this timing," Gingrich said. "It was done as early as possible to send a message to terrorists across the globe that killing Americans has a cost. It has no relationship with any other activity of any kind."

As always, the truth is more gray than the black and white both sides want it to be.   

Nothing you wrote above even remotely implies that Republicans thought Clinton was obsessed with getting Bin Laden.

I have a secret for you -- Clinton...he tells lies.  Often.  Sometimes he even gets caught in them. This was one of those times.

sxvuoqm kaioby jrbexkolv smdpqhli qcpevndg fbsruz ofxrd