Easing Bubba's Conscience
Posted November 28th, 2007 by Da King
Ex-prez Bill Clinton, stumping in Iowa for the would be next-prez, his wife Hillary, re-created a little history yesterday. That's not an unusual thing for a Clinton to do, pretty normal really, but this one was notable. Here's the statement Bubba made, according to the Washington Post:
"Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers," Clinton said. He said he "should not have gotten" the tax cuts he received as a wealthy earner.
Today, Fox News was talking about Bill saying that he "opposed Iraq from the beginning", because, well, he didn't. In May of 2003, Mr. Clinton said, "I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". So, Bubba was for the war before he was against it, and let's not forget that he was also the one who made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the US government in 1998 when he signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Let's also not forget the Clintonistas were sure those wmd were in Iraq in 1998, 2000, and 2002. Let's also not forget that Bubba's wife voted FOR the Iraq war, also before she was against it. Bill Clinton's only caveat against the Iraq war was his precarious statement that he wished Bush had let the weapons inspectors finish their job, even though the weapons inspectors had been attempting to do their job for over 10 years in Iraq, but couldn't, due to Saddam's misdirection and interference.
Do these politicians not realize that we have the ability to look their previous statements up on the internet nowadays ? How do they think they can get away with this stuff ? These lies just don't fly.
But that stuff is just Clintons being Clintons. If they didn't lie all the time, they wouldn't BE Clintons. If they didn't lie all the time, they'd be real human beings, complete with consciences and other vestiges of humanity. Oh well.
What I really want to talk about is the other part of Bubba's statement, the part where he said he didn't deserve the Bush tax cuts, and that he was "not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers". Now, maybe the ex-prez wasn't asked to give his money to support those soldiers, but he sure as heck has the opportunity, as do all the others who think they aren't paying enough in taxes. For all you rich folk out there who don't think you're paying your fair share, i.e. Bill Clinton, Warren Buffett, Barbra Streisand, and all the rest of you overpaid phonies, I'm going to help you all to ease your consciences and assuage your guilt. Lord knows, I don't want a bunch of guilty liberals running around crying in their stretch limos. So, get out your checkbooks right now and write a bunch of big fat multi-million (or billion, Mr. Buffett) dollar checks to Uncle Sam right now. I'm sure it will be greatly appreciated. If enough of you guilty fat cats like Mr. Clinton get together and pony up enough dough, maybe y'all can support the troops AND get rid of that federal deficit. I'll even provide the address for you. Consider it a public service:
Internal Revenue Service,
1111 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20224.
(You'd think Bill Clinton would know about this IRS place, since he lived right down the street from it for 8 years)
If y'all don't want to pony up the money, that's fine too, but please then, Mr. Clinton and all the rest of you rich whining pinheads, shut your lying yaps !
So, whaddya think, everyone ? Will those rich people start sending in their big checks to support the troops now and fill up the federal government's coffers ?
Not a chance.
November 28th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
"Easing Bubba's Conscience"? That's title is a hoot, King.
The Clintons are psychopath;they don't have a conscience — at least not a normal one. The clintons lie like dogs bark, fish swim, and birds fly. It's their nature. And even though Hillary, the "smartest woman in the world," knows there the Internet and fact check out there, she and that moral retrobate she's married to cannot resit the lie. They are so use to the liberal media covering up for them that they figure they can get away with it. Wrong.
And you're right, too, King, on that other point. If Clinton was concerned about paying for the troops (or the national debt for that matter), he could always take out his check book and make a contribution. I mean, for the love of Pete, the Clintons are multi-millionaires. But no, he'll never do that.
And by the way, isn't it strange how "public servants" can become multi-millionaires in government service. Every time I hear politicians — both Republicans and Democrats — speak of themselves as being public servants, I want to punk.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
[...] All Da King's Men placed an interesting blog post on Easing Bubba's Conscience [...]
November 29th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Vince, I think we should start a crusade to get all the rich libs who think they don't pay enough in taxes to start putting their money where their mouth is, and cough up some dough. If a movement like that ever caught on, you'd never hear them mention those nasty Bush tax cuts "for the rich" again.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Yes, yes……so you don't like Clinton.
What you are missing here, and I'm no great fan of the Clinton's when it comes to governance, is what Clinton was trying to get at with his comment about taxes.
Bill was saying there had been no call to shared sacrifice involving all Americans. No leadership from the top, knowing, or not caring, how to rally a nation of people together so they would stay with you til the "joint" mission was over.
Conservatives bitch about the country losing wars, the American people being responsible for the Vietnam withdrawal. At the same time, conservative presidents like the Decider, you know, men that couldn't spell the word sacrifice, let alone comprehend what it means, could never rally Americans to do something sacrificial. Everything is only and always about HIM.
We are, literally, and I'm being totally snark free here, being governed by children. Commander Child-Guy is, of course, the Child-in Chief.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Oh, I understood what Bubba was trying to say alright. It's not like he's all that complex. What you don't understand is that Bubba's full of it. He didn't mean a single word. He was lying. He was just speaking for partisan effect. If he did mean what he said, he would have done as I suggested and sent a bunch of money to the government to pay his fair share and make his sacrifice, along with all the other rich liberals who have said the same thing for the last 4 years. There is nothing stopping them but themselves. I believe it's called 'putting your money where your mouth is'. I was just trying to help, being the problem solver that I am. Their inaction puts the lie to their own words. They are just talking, and talk is cheap.
And count me as one of those who thinks that when we go to war, we should win. Bush is a leader in that respect, who hasn't wavered on the war, even when all the punks in the Democratic party were calling for us to lose. Bush is a thousand times the leader that Harry "the war is lost" Reid or John "there's no military solution" Murtha will ever be. That isn't even a debatable point. Leading doesn't mean following this week's poll. It means making a decision, seeing it through, and then living with the consequences, which is the opposite of what a Clinton does. Clintons take all sides of an issue depending on how the political wind is blowing that day, and then they just lie about the position they held yesterday. I hope you don't call that leading, because it's about as far from it as you can get.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
After reading some of these comments it seems very clear why Hillary called Clinton Speak, Jesuitical lying years ago. Of couse, they are both big liars and after studying that picture you dug out of them in their much younger days it becomes obvious to me that they have been leading us on about their life together a long time. Boy was that one "lovely "left leaning woman in her early adult years. I am sure they knew the marriage was a political one from the beginning.
Your turn Red.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:14 am
Yeah, that picture is from the old days, when Bubba didn't inhale, Hillary was a communist, and the Clinton Corporation was still in it's infancy.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:11 pm
I've already stated that Hillary Clinton is not my first pick.
That said….using your definition…
"Bush is a leader in that respect, who hasn't wavered on the war, even when all the punks in the Democratic party were calling for us to lose. Bush is a thousand times the leader that Harry "the war is lost" Reid or John "there's no military solution" Murtha will ever be. That isn't even a debatable point. Leading doesn't mean following this week's poll. It means making a decision, seeing it through, and then living with the consequences, which is the opposite of what a Clinton does."
….of what a "leader" does…..then Stalin and Hitler were leaders you might also admire.
America is a representative democracy. Paying attention to polling is paying attention to those represented.
The strange reason you offer to support Junior's leadership, is really only a sign of his contempt for those he is supposed to be representing.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:10 am
I think you have it backwards, Rev, it's the left that admired old Joe Stalin, not people like me. It's also the left that appeased Hitler, just as they are appeasing the Islamists now.
But perhaps you should reconsider Hillary, since you are arguing in favor of candidates who change like the wind as the daily opinion polls change. She's just the ticket. Btw, if Bush was like that, Al Qaeda would now be celebrating their victory over america in Iraq.
December 6th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
I could have sworn those were Wall Street type conservatives that were war profiteering in WW2. Could have sworn. Also read somewhere some bigshot conservative business types were profitting from doing business with Adolph. Paper shuffling and whatnot, all for that conservative buck, dontcha know.
No, you have in wrong. Roosevelt was a Democrat. I don't think that we lost WW2, did we? And I don't think the Democrat, who was president, was appeasing Hitler's Germany when he, like, accepted Germany's surrender. Strange appeasement, if that were the case, at least to me.
The neo-cons have, like, a bag full of phony cliches they throw out over and over….all been shown to be false….doesn't matter. They keep throwing them.
The progressive party was in charge, and I mean completely in charge, during the most important and difficult time in modern America's history. Not only did progressive economic leadership serve the country's needs after supply side greedmongers wasted the nation…..but also their foreign policy leadership saved the world.
So take the liberals-are-appeasers bone out of the bag and bury it. It's way past time.
The Vietnam thing was led by Democrats at first….what were they doing, appeasing Commies by sending troops? It doesn't wash. It doesn't wash because it isn't true.
Comparing the Islamic problem with the likes of Hitler or Stalin or Franco, even, is also ridiculous on it's face.
And finally, we've lived with a nuclear accident threat for…..ummm……60 years now. Ain't nothing new. Hysterical reactions to a nuclear threat are exactly that, hysterical.
There's a miniscule chance that the sun will blow up tomorrow and we'll all freeze to death instantly….but I ain't gonna burn the Constitution over worrying about it….and I ain't gonna declare war randomly, in order to make as much money for my buddies before I froze, as I could.
Breaking news: al-Qaeda IS celebrating their victory over us….it's not a complete victory, mind you, but it's beyond Osama's wildest dreams. Where should he send the recruitment bonus checks, the Pentagon perhaps?
December 7th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Wow, Rev, you are some incredible liar. Roosevelt did put us into WWII, but only after the JAPANESE BOMBED PEARL HARBOR !!! Germany also had declared war on us. I don't think there was much choice after that. Prior to that, the US took an isolationist stance, and the LEFT in the US, Brittain, and France were full out in favor of appeasement of Hitler. At least you didn't try to contradict my obvious statement that the left appeased Stalin as well, especially since the Communists actually had their spies within the Democratic party back in the day.
And how funny is it that you are now defending Democrats for starting the Vietnam war, when before you condemned that war and took credit for the LEFT ending it ? I repeat, you really should vote for Hillary, since you'll take any side of an issue. Btw, I don't consider JFK a member of the LEFT. He was a Democrat, but not a leftist. There used to be a big difference. YOU are a leftist. JFK was one of my favorite presidents.
Keep downplaying the biggest threat known to humanity, a nuclear attack (except for that 1 degree temperature rise over the last century. That's the threat that worries insane libs). Keep downplaying the threat of Islamic religious extremism, an ideology so radical that they actually strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up to kill their enemies. Gee, how could I ever be so wingnutty as to think THOSE types of people might be dangerous if they ever got their hands on nuclear weapons ? Keep downplaying that stuff, Rev, and keep proving my point in spades that LIBERALS ARE APPEASERS. Your words prove it better than mine ever could.
And if Al Qaeda is winning, I'd sure as heck hate to be losing.