posted on December 4, 2002 04:29:19 PM new
I can see democrats crawling all over them selves to defend Clinton, while bashing President Bush over this book.
Catastrophe begins on January 20, 1993, when William Jefferson Clinton took the oath of office as the 42nd president of the United States of America. Clinton swore to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" from enemies both foreign and domestic.
During the next eight years, Bill Clinton would preside over the most corrupt administration in American history. He would be only the second president in American history to be impeached.
When Bill Clinton took office, American supremacy on the world stage had never been so great and unchallenged. Our military was without equal. The economy was beginning a record boom.
Soon after Bill Clinton left office, Americans began to discover his bitter legacy. Even as Clinton was leaving Washington, the American economy had begun to move into a serious recession.
And America's belief in invulnerability was shattered on September 11, 2001, when 19 Arab hijackers slammed civilian jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
As Catastrophe: Clinton's Role in America's Worst Disaster demonstrates, the events of September 11 not only were predictable after eight years of Clinton, but they also could have been prevented.
Catastrophe exposes what really happened during the Clinton years, and how Bill Clinton and his administration systematically undermined America's national security by emasculating the U.S. military and the nation's intelligence agencies. Bill Clinton made America vulnerable to attack.
Here are just some of the revelations from Catastrophe:
Clinton's own admission that he could have extradited Osama bin Laden from Sudan - but he didn't because he felt bin Laden was not a threat! If you don't believe this, read his verbatim comments from our exclusive tape recording!
A senior CIA officer goes on record to reveal that Bill Clinton helped Saddam Hussein by allowing him to illegally sell oil - and make billions to stay in power.
Clinton adviser Dick Morris says that Clinton was warned about the terrorist bombings against
American troops at the Khobar Towers - and he ignored the warning!
The FBI and CIA could have easily foiled the 9-11 attacks - but were negligent as two known terrorist gained entry into the U.S. with the CIA's full knowledge. They would later participate in the 9-11 attacks.
FBI agent Coleen Rowley says the FBI could have prevented 9-11, but refused to get a search warrant on one of the 9-11 terrorists.
NewsMax broke the story that Bill Clinton tied the hands of the CIA and FBI - hear from agents on the inside who broke the story on NewsMax and reveal what really happened.
Bill Clinton refused to require driver's licenses to expire at the time of expiring visas. If he had done this, one of the 9-11 terrorists would have been arrested or deported.
The 1996 Clinton-Gore airline safety commission set the stage for 9-11.
Why Clinton's adviser Dick Morris says Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinksy helped Osama bin Laden survive and plot 9-11
Read Bill Clinton's shocking statements about America's guilt in 9-11 - he even blamed America for 9-11 and cited our treatment of the Indians and Muslims during the Crusades!
A secret 1994 terrorism report warned of suicidal hijackings - and Bill Clinton ignored it.
And there is much, much more in Catastrophe, including:
There is strong evidence that the West Nile virus was the first bioweapon used by Iraq. Did you know the first cases appeared near the United Nations in New York and that a major Iraqi defector said Saddam bragged in 1997 he would release the West Nile virus on America?
A top economics adviser to Russia's President Putin warned on the front page of Pravda, just months before 9-11, that a catastrophic "financial attack" on the U.S. economy would take place. She has new warnings about the future.
The Russian government officially told its citizens to cash out dollars in the months after 9-11 - and warned of an economic collapse. Did it have advance knowledge?
Two top U.S. military commanders have warned that weapons of mass destruction will be used in the new war on terrorism.
FEMA has a secret plan to build emergency cities that could house millions of Americans - after our cities are attacked by weapons of mass destruction.
New evidence exists that al-Qaeda acquired small nuclear weapons in the late 1990s.
Why is Warren Buffet predicting a nuclear attack on a U.S. city?
China's hidden ties with the Taliban and al-Qaeda are revealed, along with new evidence that China was providing arms and intelligence to both groups even after 9-11.
A senior Senate aide goes on the record to say that senators and congressman will never investigate the FBI's role in 9-11 - they are too afraid the FBI will blackmail them.
If the U.S. invades Iraq, Saddam has already told the U.S. how he will retaliate and what weapons he will use.
Catastrophe is a wake-up call to Americans. This is the book that reveals the real story - without media censorship.
Gen. Jack Singlaub says, "Every American needs to get and read Catastrophe. It reveals Bill Clinton's role in 9-11 and what America must do to prevent future attacks."
About the Author
Christopher Ruddy
Editor, CEO & President of NewsMax.com
Journalist & Author
Christopher Ruddy is one the nation's premier journalists. In 1999, Newsweek named him one of America's top 20 new media personalities.
As an investigative reporter Mr. Ruddy has broken numerous stories that have received national acclaim. In 1992 he revealed that a PBS documentary had fabricated key facts - causing PBS to withdraw its support for the film, the first time the agency had made such a move.
At the New York Post, Mr. Ruddy's series on abuses of the Social Security Disability programs led to national media attention and congressional reforms. Also at the Post, Mr. Ruddy broke several stories relating to the death investigation of deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster.
He continued his reporting on that case and on Clinton-Gore scandals as a correspondent with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. In 1997, Mr. Ruddy authored The Strange Death of Vincent Foster: An Investigation, published by Simon & Schuster's Free Press. His book received the endorsement of former FBI Director William Sessions, who said Mr. Ruddy's reporting "argued a persuasive case that the American public has not been told the complete facts" of the Foster death.
His blockbuster new book, Catastrophe: Clinton's Role in America's Worst Disaster, co-edited with Carl Limbacher Jr., draws upon the reporting resources of NewsMax.com. This revealing book makes an airtight case that, through malfeasance and negligence, Bill Clinton rendered America vulnerable to 9/11. Catastrophe not only demonstrates that 9/11 could have been prevented - it also gives damning proof that Clinton could easily have arrested Osama bin Laden.
A much-in-demand media commentator, Mr. Ruddy has been a featured guest on radio programs around the world as well as numerous TV programs, including:
CNN Sunday Morning, MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, CNBC's Rivera Live, FOX News, FOX In Depth, FOX's Hannity & Colmes, NBC's Unsolved Mysteries, CBS's 60 Minutes, C-SPAN's About Books, PBS's Tony Brown's Journal and BET Tonight with Tavis Smiley.
Christopher Ruddy is a Media Fellow at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace. He holds a B.A. summa cum laude in History from St. John's University in New York and a Master's Degree in Public Policy from the London School of Economics. Mr. Ruddy currently publishes and edits NewsMax.com magazine and NewsMax.com, one of America's leading Web sites for news.
Carl Limbacher Jr. first gained notoriety as a reporter with the Washington Weekly and has built a reputation at NewsMax.com as one of the hottest sources for alternative news on the Internet and as a frequent guest on radio and TV talk shows throughout America.
With breaking updates several times a day, Mr. Limbacher has made the "Inside Cover" section of NewsMax.com a must-read for media-savvy folks everywhere.
Mr. Limbacher's stories have been picked up by conservative media stars Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity - and his scoops are regularly covered by the New York Post's "Page Six" and even The Washington Times editorial page.
In 1998, he was first with the news that Congressional Black Caucus chairwoman Maxine Waters wanted an investigation into the death of Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown - and the first in print with complaints from Brown's daughter about a government cover-up. Months later, Mr. Limbacher went public with the behind-the-scenes story on the jailhouse death of key Whitewater witness James McDougal - including claims from witnesses who say prison officials denied him his heart medication hours before he died of a heart attack.
And no one knows more than Limbacher about Bill and Hillary Clinton's dark past - and future plans to undermine the Bush administration and reclaim the White House.
Although the mainstream press refused to credit NewsMax, it was Limbacher's Inside Cover report
posted on December 4, 2002 06:19:03 PM new
This article relies upon the ignorance of the reader in order to make itself sound like the truth. It hopes the reader is not acquainted with the military and intelligence agencies in this country, the parts played by Bush and Cheney to cause economic and terrorist disasters. The list of outright lies starts with "Bill Clinton would preside over the most corrupt administration in American history" which is not true, as it is well documented that Ronald Reagan presided over the most felony convictions of any presidential administration ever, and it does not stop the distortions and half-truths until you get to the end. It's so laughable that I won't even try to make a list of it. Have fun whoever else wants to try their hand at it. In the meantime, Clinton is not President and hasn't been for years. Right now, we have a bigger, more dangerous problem sitting in the White House to focus on.
posted on December 4, 2002 06:45:00 PM new
Bear,You are quoteing Newsmax? I use to read it untill it dawned on me it leaned way over to the republican side.It is not a fair and realible web site for the truth.
For instance,Osama brought the towers down after Clinton was out of office.He waited untill Jr. Bush was in office.....to get back at Clinton? HUH?
And Clinton spent all his time in office in Congresional hearings over his sex life,Not political,Sexual!
The Repulicans made sure Clinton was real busy with bull patties while in office.
I heard Clintons remark about Osama in the snipers scope,He could have taken him out alright,And had no real charges against him.He would still be in hearings over that,the Arab world would have gone nuts.And of course another Congressional hearing because it would have been an act of terrorism by the United States.
I have also read that a lot of things that happened to Clinton might have been a covert operation to make him look bad in public includeing Vince Fosters death.How much did you hear about JFKs fun and games while in office,Nada.He was long buried before any of the stories leaked out.
Was Clinton dishonest? Yup,Did he make money? Yup...chump change, compared to what the good old boys are doing now.
There is not a single stinking soul in office, I trust.They are there for themselves only.There is no us against them,Its "them" only.
posted on December 4, 2002 07:09:22 PM newNEWSMAX???.. as the kids like to say ROFLMAO!!!
As I've say before, the far right just can't make it's case unless it has a SCAREY BOOGEY-MAN to blame everything on, and Clinton was, and apparently still is, the ultimate boogey-man...Osama and Saddam will never top him...until one of them has it off with a cute aide in a White House hallway...maybe that's it...they're just JEALOUS!!!
edited for spelling because I was laughing so hard...newsmax.........
[ edited by profe51 on Dec 4, 2002 07:12 PM ]
posted on December 4, 2002 07:47:10 PM new
Folks, didn't I say "I can see democrats crawling all over them selves to defend Clinton, while bashing President Bush over this book."
posted on December 4, 2002 08:32:55 PM new
Oops! did I say "sell"? It's a 25 dollar "value" that you can get for "FREE"...all you have to do is sign up for newsmax's newsletter! here's the link from the newsmax store, since bear chose not to give it to us.
posted on December 4, 2002 08:38:11 PM new
Borillar
I was refering to what I expect to see as a mass defense in the media & and on this board. I don't know, nor do I care of any posters political affiliations.
profe51
Am I attempting to sell a bood....NO.
I have the book on order.
So what difference is there between posting exerpts from the cover page of a book & cutting & pasting an article from a newspaper , magazine or internet web site?
NONE.
I found the book while browsing Amazon.Com & used that review of the book.
So, infact I am not promoting the newsmax web site.
posted on December 4, 2002 08:56:23 PM new
$17.42 @ Amazon.com
OK, now I get it, you can't tell the difference between ad copy and news reporting. That explains it.
Ad copy nooooo, opinion & review Yesssss.
All "NEWS REPORTING" is in fact, is one view of a topic, published by a openiated selfserving multi-million dollar conglomeration to increase its subscription, whether the facts are true or not.
[ edited by bear1949 on Dec 4, 2002 09:06 PM ]
posted on December 4, 2002 11:24:02 PM new
Personally, I find this continual vendette by the Right against ex-President Clinton pathetic! This horse that they're beating is so old that it's gone to the glue factory. That the Right needs to continue to chase Clinton shows weakness on their part, a weakness of the mind, a fixation that won't let them rest at night, an obsession that the rest of us couldn't care less about.
On the other hand, I find it amusing that they still see Clinton as a real threat.
posted on December 5, 2002 07:43:21 AM new
[i]Personally, I find this continual vendette by the Right against ex-President Clinton pathetic! This horse that they're
beating is so old that it's gone to the glue factory. That the Right needs to continue to chase Clinton shows
weakness on their part, a weakness of the mind, a fixation that won't let them rest at night, an obsession that the
rest of us couldn't care less about.
On the other hand, I find it amusing that they still see Clinton as a real threat.[/i]
Well I guess we know who the liberal DEFENSIVE democrats are now. Never wanting to face the reality that their IDOL Clinton was wrong
posted on December 5, 2002 02:17:36 PM new
I'd have to ask the same thing, WHO?
I love the way some people like to use "liberal" as if it were a bad word. Now bear has done the same thing by adding "Democrat" to his list of swear words!
By the way bear, why is it that anyone who takes a position different from yours is labeled as "defensive"?
I've got a cuss word for you bear...
TROLL
[ edited by profe51 on Dec 5, 2002 02:19 PM ]
[i]your italics are not working. You need to keep typing without hitting the return or enter key. When you get to the the end of the page just keep typing like this without hitting enter and you can bold an entire paragraph or page..You can write many long paragraphs about Clinton all in italics or bold. LOL![/i ]
[i]With this line, I have to start over because I hit the enter key to start another line. I am entering the tags with a space so you can see.[/i ]
[i]Then if I skip a line, I have to add the same tags again.[/i ]
I left a space in the closing tags so that you could see where the tags are necessary. If I had closed the space on the ending tags, everything that I wrote above would be in italics. Bold works the same way.
posted on December 5, 2002 02:59:53 PM new
profe51
I presume that the 51 in you handle is a direct reference to your IQ.
Although I an confused by your meaning of the lable "Troll"
Websters Dictionary defines "troll" as:
Main Entry: 1troll
Pronunciation: 'trOl
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English
Date: 15th century
transitive senses
1 : to cause to move round and round : ROLL
2 a : to sing the parts of (as a round or catch) in succession
b : to sing loudly
c : to celebrate in song
3 a : to fish for by trolling b : to fish by trolling in <troll lakes>
c : to pull through the water in trolling <troll a lure> intransitive senses
1 : to move around : RAMBLE
2 : to fish by trailing a lure or baited hook from a moving boat
3 : to sing or play in a jovial manner
4 : to speak rapidly - troll·er noun
posted on December 5, 2002 03:04:24 PM new
Sure, Helen. Like this, Bear -- just remove the extra space in [ /i] to look like this [/i] in the examples below:
EXAMPLE ONE:
[i]The Rain In Spain Falls Mainly On The Plain.[ /i]
creates:
The Rain In Spain Falls Mainly On The Plain.
EXAMPLE TWO:
[i]The Rain In Spain[ /i]
[i]Falls Mainly On The Plain[ /i]
creates:
The Rain In Spain Falls Mainly On The Plain
EXAMPLE THREE - WRONG WAY:
[i]The Rain In Spain
Falls Mainly On The Plain[/i]
creates:
[i]The Rain In Spain
Falls Mainly On The Plain[/i]
Hope that helps as well.
Also, you can double-up on commands, like Bold and Italicized together.
EXAMPLE:
[b][i]The Rain In Spain Falls Mainly On The Plain.[ /i][ /b]
posted on December 5, 2002 05:02:21 PM new
>By the way bear, why is it that anyone who takes a position different from yours is labeled as "defensive"?
Although this question was addressed to Bear, I doubt that he's going to answer it, so I'll just take it upon myself to take a stab at it.
Bear calls himself a Conservative. Does Bear know the political theory and history of Conservatism? We have yet to find out for sure. At any rate, he seems to have classified everyone's into two political spectrums: His and Theirs; or, Conservatives and Liberals. Therefore, if you disagree with what he has to say (conservative) then you must automatically be the opposite (liberal). That's very Black and White thinking.
Because Bear is only thinking two dimensionally, politically speaking, he aligns himself with the party that claims the loudest to be the Home for Conservatives, namely, the Republican Party. With typical binary thinking, since Conservatives are in the Republican Party, therefore, Liberals must be in the Democratic Party! This narrow definition of people is encouraged by the media Mouthpieces for the Republican party and Bear basks in its unholy glow. And since this is the FUNDAMENTAIST METHOD of Political Theory; i.e. Literalism as dictated by the Party Machine, it does not require anyone to THINK or EXAMINE what the party says versus what it actually ends up doing.
Most of us understand the pitfalls to this sort of political philosophy. However, everyone should be reminded that while Bear is holding onto this arcane political theory, at least he is venturing to have one - and to bring it into the public. That's a whole lot more than most Americans, who couldn't give a damn about any of it, so long as they aren't bothered. And of those who, like Bear, have adopted this Fundamentalist Political Theory, at least he's been willing to bring it out into this open forum and to expose his thoughts and feelings to us. That's more than most.
I do not want to go harsh on Bear, now that he's cooperating in discussions. I would like to help him to see not just the error of what he's doing -- anyone can do that! I would like him to understand WHY. Why it's wrong, why we feel this way instead of his way, why things are not what they seem. At the worst, Bear will resent it and I can't say that I blame him for it. It's always been the policy to shoot the messenger.
posted on December 5, 2002 07:37:19 PM new
bear, surely you can do better than to insult my IQ!! c'mon big guy!
Look, you started this thread by posting a cut and pasted teaser for a book and posed the challenge:
" I can see democrats crawling all over them selves to defend Clinton, while bashing President Bush over this book."
then, when some of us offered differing opinions, you responded with:
"I see it is starting already.. and"Well I guess we know who the liberal DEFENSIVE democrats are now. Never wanting to face the reality that their IDOL Clinton was wrong"
You threw out the bait, and we took it. You were trolling,{def.3) although as Helen says, not very well, as a good troll is hard to spot!!
posted on December 6, 2002 08:22:21 AM new
So if you are anti Bush, what political affiliation do you align yourself with?
Could it be the democrats?
If you continue to DEFEND clinton, what political affiliation do you align your self with?
Again could it be the democrats?
Is anyone who is pro Bush automatically considered a republican?
Is anyone that is (or shouold be) ashamed of the immoralities presented in the clinton era, automatically labled a republican?
There is no one in elected office in the U.S. that is infailable to public openion.
That is what makes America what it is. We have the right to express our opinion without fear of reprisal (except from our fellow posters).
I am PRO BUSH, because of his higher moral standards, his stance on the war against terrorism & because he is the best man for the job at hand.
The press has recently refered to President Bush as "Cowboy II". A reference to Ronald Reagan (who has been named the "greatest living American" in a new Esquire magazine survey), was often called cowboy. And I was pro Reagan.
Call me a republican if that makes you happy. But I am not one of the upper crust, elite, rich folks that live in million dollar homes. Have limos & 8 car garages, that pay little of their million dollar income in taxes.
I'm an American who is doing the best I can, with what I have and supporting the best president we have had in the past 10 years.
posted on December 6, 2002 10:42:20 AM new
Thanks, Bear. That was a lot of rhetoric, but I managed to get the gist. You are a Republican and Pro-Bush. You also tend to see the world as Black & White and that's certainly your right to see it that way. However, the world isn't black and white and this is where your simplistic assumptions stir your fellow posters up. Is it any wonder?
Bear, I don't like Clinton a whole lot. He's not my hero - Jesus is. Compared to Bush, I like Clinton a Whole lot better. I dislike lies and many lies have been told about Clinton to smear him. On the other hand, many truths have been told about Bush's lies to reveal the truth about him, which is never pretty. That doesn't make me a Democrat or a Liberal. By your labeling me and others wrong in public due to the ignorant way that you see everyone's political affiliations, you get back what you created for yourself.
>We have the right to express our opinion without fear of reprisal (except from our fellow posters).
Now that's just crybaby talk. This is an open, public forum. Anyone who makes a post in this forum can have someone respond to it. There's no guarantee that those responses will be favorable to you or your position. If you do not want your opinions evaluated and dissected, then do not put them on the table. Keep them to yourself.
As far as your new efforts to bring something interesting to the discussions, I think that this was a great effort on your part. Bear, it's a learning process. It was for me too. I quickly learned that if I put out a position of mine, I'd better be ready to back up any claims I made hard and fast. I learned to copy articles I found on the Internet that support my thoughts, as things have a way of disappearing over time. I learned to Bookmark RT Thread URLs into my Favorites to save for later, as new people tend to challenge what has already been thoroughly discussed.
Bear, it's tough being in here for long. You have to be ready to have everything you say challenged, examined, misinterpreted, joked about, thrown back into your face a year later, and sometimes completely ignored. It happens. But, it promotes honest discussions, unlike many a messageboard I've seen, where it's nothing but fighting, screaming, and yelling at each other.
Keep at it. Look for provocative material from Mainstream sources; such as, the main media might have a pro-Bush piece (they sometimes do) or they might post some new facts against Clinton that have recently come to light. Mainstream media usually tries to find at least TWO reputable sources for the facts and the facts can be verified on paperwork, physical evidence, etc. Your problem is likely that this sort of journalism is likely to provide anti-Bush/Republican information and little to nothing wrong about Clinton. That's not because of "liberals", it's because the methods used by honest and professional journalists and editors try to give you the true facts.
Keep trying. Bush did sign a few small bills recently that were good for the American people for once. For instance, he signed the Dot Kids measure that creates on the Internet the designation .kids which is kid-safe web sites. While I have to read up on it to see if included any penalties for violating the Dot Kids and also importantly, if he allocated any money for enforcement of said punishments - very important. It's easy to pass legislation that your supporters want if you do not intend on giving any money for the new program or for enforcement for the new rules.
posted on December 6, 2002 02:03:01 PM new
Borillar
You are correct in one respect, it is a learning experience. I do need to remember to bookmark articles I believe.
A crybaby.....no just pointing out the fact that any item posted on this board is subject to "open season", criticism, and was intended "tounge in cheek".
Black & white, again no. I read accounts of political & other items of interest. The author's of these articles and the publishers "slant" or political tendency & creditability help me form my own opinions & judgements of what I have read. Innuendos and hidden agendas ARE readly transparent. In other words, I consider the soource of the information, I don't take it a "face" value.
Still I feel that clinton was the most repugnant individual ever elected to the American presidency. Nothing anyone can or ever will say will change my openion of him.
One thing we all can agree to is that "We will never agree on 100%" of every posting found here.
