posted on May 26, 2007 09:08:50 AM new
News » World news
Clinton 'planned to divorce Hillary to be with one of his many lovers'
By WILLIAM LOWTHER
Bill Clinton was ready to divorce Hillary to be with one of his lovers, according to a book out next month.
The marriage crisis is said to have ended with his wife talking him out of the move, telling a friend "there are worse things than infidelity".
The story is among a string of revelations in two books detailing Mrs Clinton's rise to the U.S. Senate and her push for the presidency.
Bill Clinton planned to divorce Hillary to be with one of his many lovers, claims Carl Bernsten's book on the couple
Both works document her husband's many affairs when he was governor of Arkansas.
Carl Bernstein claims in A Woman in Charge that the love of the former president's life was business executive Marilyn Jo Jenkins.
According to the Watergate journalist, Miss Jenkins was spirited into the governor's mansion for a final, furtive meeting with him the day he left to claim the White House.
Miss Jenkins is said to have played such a "pivotal role" in Mr Clinton's life that in 1989 he offered to divorce Hillary to be with her.
The ensuing crisis apparently led to Betsey Wright, Mr Clinton's chief of staff, taking him to see a therapist.
Mrs Clinton later told her best friend Diane Blair that she believed the presidency would help her marriage because her husband's "sexual compulsions would be tempered by the White House and the ever-present press corps".
As Mr Bernstein makes clear, in light of the Monica Lewinsky scandal that turned out to be "a flawed assumption".
In the 640-page book, Bob Boorstin, who
worked for Mrs Clinton when she was trying to restructure the nation's healthcare system, blamed her for the collapse of her own plans.
"I find her to be among the most self-righteous people I've ever known," he told Mr Bernstein. "It's her great flaw."
Mark Fabiani, who defended the Clintons as White House counsel, said Hillary was "so tortured by the way she's been treated that she would do anything to get out of the situation.
"If that involved not being fully forthcoming, Mr Fabiani said she would say: 'I have a reason for not being forthcoming.'"
The second book, Her Way by New York Times reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr, claims that Mrs Clinton hired a private detective to investigate one of her husband's mistresses.
According to the book, she ordered the detective to undermine Gennifer Flowers "until she is destroyed".
The incident took place when Mr Clinton was running for president in 1992.
Her Way looks in detail at Mrs Clinton's Senate vote in support of the Iraq war, suggesting she may have been motivated by a desire not to abandon her husband's toughon-Iraq policy and a need "to prove that she was tough".
Both books were leaked to the Washington Post yesterday ahead of publication next month.
The Post said Mrs Clinton emerges as a "complicated, sometimes compromised figure who tolerated Bill Clinton's brazen infidelity, pursued her policy and political goals with methodical drive".
The New York Senator, it said, had "occasionally skirted along the edge of the truth along the way" to power.
It said the books posed "a number of assertions and anecdotes that could confront her campaign with unwelcome questions".
Last night political analysts said the books would damage Mrs Clinton in the eyes of some voters. They added, however, that most would find little to surprise them in the allegations.
One of the most unsettling charges in Her Way is that the Clintons made a "secret plan" when they were in Arkansas in which they would each have two terms as president.
The authors said that even before the pair married, they formulated a "secret pact of ambition" aimed at the White House.
Mr Bernstein said that both Clintons went to great lengths to "keep the lid on his infidelities".
On one occasion Hillary personally interviewed one of her husband's lovers and helped persuade her to sign a statement saying she had never had sex with him.
Mrs Clinton's Senate office dismissed the books as offering no new material.
Her spokesman Philippe Reines told the Washington Post: "Is it possible to be quoted yawning? If past books on Mrs Clinton were cash for trash, these books are nothing more than cash for rehash."
Her campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told the paper: "The news here is that it took three reporters nearly a decade to find no news.
"Two overwhelming Senate victories in the toughest media market in the country demonstrated that voters have put these issues behind them."
posted on May 26, 2007 09:13:46 AM new
"Is it possible to be quoted yawning? If past books on Mrs Clinton were cash for trash, these books are nothing more than cash for rehash."
Her campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told the paper: "The news here is that it took three reporters nearly a decade to find no news.
"Two overwhelming Senate victories in the toughest media market in the country demonstrated that voters have put these issues behind them."
posted on May 26, 2007 09:17:34 AM new
As YOU should be well aware, sybil, what one says doesn't mean it's true. Your posts rarely are true....and yet you keep repeating yourself all the time.
I have read a lot about the clintons and never read that at one point he was going to divorce her. I'm sure these two books will even be MORE enlightening into their unusual, marriage of convenience.
I like the part where she's quoted as saying if he was elected maybe it would help with his 'sexual' addiction. LOL LOL
"The ensuing crisis apparently led to Betsey Wright, Mr Clinton's chief of staff, taking him to see a therapist[/b].
Mrs Clinton later told her best friend Diane Blair thatshe believed the presidency would help her marriage because her husband's "sexual compulsions would be tempered by the White House and the ever-present press corps".
[ edited by Linda_K on May 26, 2007 09:24 AM ]
posted on May 26, 2007 09:22:45 AM new
""" have read a lot about the clintons and never read that at one point he was going to divorce her. I'm sure these two books will even be MORE enlightening into their unusual, marriage of convenience."""
You must get off on reading the dirt on other couple's marriages Is that why you went to marriage counseling groups? To get the "dirt" ????
What a sick nosy old JEALOUS thing you are LOL!
posted on May 26, 2007 09:23:42 AM new
Linda, you are a sucker for sleaze. Do you even get a bad taste in your big mouth when you lap it up without question?
I know the liberals don't want ANY of their past brought up during hillary's run for the WH.
TOO bad....it's going to be. As will her concern about being indicted. lol
She nor you can control what is written about their lives. All is open to the voters about anyone who wants the highest position in our Nation.
And I told you years ago, helen, it was ALL going to become a part of her campaign IF she was stupid enough to make a run for the WH. This is ONLY the beginning of all the corruption and fraud that will come up in the next few months.
It can only help obama...and I'd of thought that would THRILL you to death, helen.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 26, 2007 09:34:53 AM newa sucker for sleaze
Hahahaha..... just more peeking into the sex lives and bedrooms of others. Kind of creepy that some enjoy lapping all this up, whether there is truth in it or not.
posted on May 26, 2007 09:39:01 AM new
Sorry, linduh, but those "facts" you posted about the Clinton's marriage mean pretty much nothing even if they were true.
The marriage of anyone who runs could be put under a microspoe and disected....er, actually with the Republicans it would be SEVERAL, MANY, marriages and remarriages
Your interest in their intimate life tells a lot about your LACK OF ONE !
LOL!!!!!
posted on May 26, 2007 09:44:21 AM new
LOL oh, but sybil...these TWO books have a lot more than their marriage issues in them.
They're reported to be FULL of all the corruption hillary was involved with....as our 'second' president....two for the price of one....lol lol
While of course, you liberals want to dismiss the lack of character of a man you fully supported. Nothing he could ever do wrong would bother any of you. lol I learned that a long, long time ago.
But as with ALL books giving the public better insight into the lives of our political leaders....these books WILL make a difference to many Americans.
And we'll see if old hillary denies ANY of her actions/decisions that are mentioned in these TWO books.
posted on May 26, 2007 09:50:21 AM new
"""And we'll see if old hillary denies ANY of her actions/decisions that are mentioned in these TWO books."""
Keep tryin'.....I see no reason why Hillary, or anyone else, has to spend their time fending off every comment about theire marriage...or in the case of Republicans, marriageSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.
I also see NO correlation between what ANY candidate has to offer as president and their marriages.
YES, I know I joke about how many marriages the Republicans have amassed but I really don't care....there's so many OTHER reasons not to vote for them
Your interest in their intimate life tells a lot about your LACK OF ONE !
LOL!!!!!
posted on May 26, 2007 09:53:50 AM new
And the public IS becoming more and more aware of the actions of the clinton in HIS admin.
They will use these to decide who will get their vote come '08.
===============
May 26, 2007
Suit Sheds Light on Clintons’ Ties to a Benefactor
By MIKE McINTIRE
When former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton took a family vacation in January 2002 to Acapulco, Mexico, one of their longtime supporters, Vinod Gupta, provided his company’s private jet to fly them there.
The company, infoUSA, one of the nation’s largest brokers of information on consumers, paid $146,866 to ferry the Clintons, Mr. Gupta and others to Acapulco and back, court records show.
During the next four years, infoUSA paid Mr. Clinton more than $2 million for consulting services, and spent almost $900,000 to fly him around the world for his presidential foundation work and to fly Mrs. Clinton to campaign events.
Those expenses are cited in a lawsuit filed late last year in a Delaware court by angry shareholders of infoUSA, who assert that Mr. Gupta wasted the company’s money trying “to ingratiate himself” with his high-profile guests.
The disclosure of the trips and the consulting fees is just a small part of a broader complaint about the way Mr. Gupta has managed his company. But for the former president, and for the senator who would become president, it offers significant new details about their relationship with an unusually generous benefactor whose business practices have lately come under scrutiny.
In addition to the shareholder accusations, The New York Times reported last Sunday that an investigation by the authorities in Iowa found that infoUSA sold consumer data several years ago to telemarketing criminals who used it to steal money from elderly Americans. It advertised call lists with titles like “Elderly Opportunity Seekers” or “Suffering Seniors,” a compilation of people with cancer or Alzheimer’s disease. The company called the episodes an aberration and pledged that it would not happen again.
Asked to describe Mr. Clinton’s consulting services, an infoUSA official said they were limited to making appearances at one or two company events each year. Jay Carson, a spokesman for Mr. Clinton, would not elaborate on what the former president does for infoUSA, but said that he shared the public’s concern about misuse of personal information.
“It goes without saying that any suggestion that seniors are being preyed upon should be fully investigated and addressed by the appropriate agencies,” Mr. Carson said.
Aides to Mrs. Clinton were at pains to distance her from infoUSA, pointing out that she had sponsored legislation that would strengthen privacy rights of consumers. As for the flights on infoUSA’s plane, Phil Singer, Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman, said the senator “complied with all the relevant ethics rules” on accepting private air travel.
Ethics rules for senators and candidates require only that the recipient of a flight make reimbursement at a rate equal to that of a first-class ticket, a long-derided loophole that allows special interests to provide de facto gifts of expensive private air travel, which generally costs far more than commercial fares. Mr. Singer would not say what Mrs. Clinton paid for her flights.
InfoUSA’s troubles come at an especially awkward moment for Mrs. Clinton, since Mr. Gupta is among a loyal coterie of reliable fund-raisers whom she would be expected to turn to as she pursues the Democratic presidential nomination. He has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Clintons’ campaigns over the years, and has donated $1 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.
The Clintons’ role in the shareholder suit has been largely overlooked even as the presidential race has heated up. The Deal, a business publication, said in a February article about infoUSA that the lawsuit’s references to an unnamed “former high-ranking government official and his wife” appeared to describe Mr. and Mrs. Clinton.
Neither aides to the Clintons nor infoUSA disputed that the complaint referred to the Clintons.
An entrepreneur from India, Mr. Gupta, 60, founded infoUSA in Omaha in 1972 and built it into a publicly traded company with more than $400 million in revenue. Along the way, he nurtured a taste for politics, becoming a major Democratic fund-raiser and a Lincoln Bedroom guest in the Clinton White House.
Before leaving office, Mr. Clinton appointed Mr. Gupta to the board of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Earlier, Mr. Clinton had nominated him for two minor ambassadorships, which Mr. Gupta declined because of business commitments.
“Vin’s done a very good job over the years finding ways to get connected,” said Stormy Dean, the chief financial officer of infoUSA and onetime candidate for governor in Nebraska, where the company is based.
“I don’t know whether he’s ever got anything out of his connections in politics,” Mr. Dean said. “But he likes it, and he’s good at it. He’s a legitimate American success story.”
Mr. Gupta declined to comment for this article.
Mr. Gupta is clearly proud of his friendship with the Clintons. He once had a personal Web site — it was taken down last year — where he posted photographs of himself socializing with them. One showed him with Mr. Clinton on a golf course, arms draped around each other and smiling; another showed Mrs. Clinton posing with the Gupta family in Aspen. Mr. Gupta even dedicated two school construction projects he financed in a rural part of his native India to the Clintons, naming one of them after him and the other after her.
After Mr. Clinton left office, Mr. Gupta was one of two businessmen with whom the former president agreed to enter into consulting arrangements (the other was Ronald W. Burkle, a billionaire investor and major Democratic donor). In 2002, Mrs. Clinton began reporting her husband’s work for infoUSA on her Senate financial disclosure forms, but she does not have to disclose his income and it is not clear what he is paid.
The shareholder lawsuit against infoUSA, brought by two Connecticut-based hedge funds, Dolphin Limited Partnership and Cardinal Capital Management, forced that information into the open. It charges that Mr. Gupta’s spending on the Clintons is part of a pattern of improper company expenditures for things like luxury cars, jets and houses, as well as a yacht that is notable for being one of the few to have an all-female crew.
Mr. Gupta has defended the expenses as legitimate and business-related, and he has accused the hedge funds of trying to wrest control of the company through a smear campaign. Mr. Gupta has moved to have the lawsuit dismissed; a decision is pending.
Representatives of Dolphin and Cardinal declined to comment. Herbert A. Denton, president of Providence Capital, a New York hedge fund that also invested in infoUSA and had pressed for management changes, said the expenditures cited in the lawsuit were hard to defend.
“When the C.E.O. of a publicly traded company can say with a straight face that the shareholders benefit from having a yacht with an all-female crew stationed in the Virgin Islands, then you’ve got a problem,” Mr. Denton said.
The lawsuit says Mr. Clinton signed a consulting agreement in April 2002 to “provide confidential advice and counsel to the chairman and C.E.O. of the company for the purpose of strategic growth and business development.” InfoUSA made $2.1 million in quarterly payments to Mr. Clinton from July 2003 to April 2005, and in October 2005 entered into a new three-year agreement to pay him $1.2 million. It also gave him an option to buy 100,000 shares of infoUSA stock, with no expiration date.
The complaint asserts that the contracts with Mr. Clinton are “extremely vague” to the point of being wasteful. It says they state that Mr. Clinton will not lobby for infoUSA, and that the company cannot use his name, likeness or association for any business purpose.
Mr. Dean said the former president’s presence at company events “adds a lot of credibility” to infoUSA in business circles. Mr. Clinton normally commands $125,000 to $300,000 for the many speeches he gives each year, and has earned almost $40 million on the lecture circuit since leaving office.
Mr. Dean said Mr. Clinton had no role in infoUSA’s data collection and distribution business, which was criticized by the authorities in Iowa who uncovered the questionable sales of call lists during an investigation of unscrupulous telemarketers in 2005. After the Times article on Sunday about that case, officials at the Federal Trade Commission indicated they were considering opening their own inquiry into infoUSA’s practices.
Mr. Dean also said that the numerous flights infoUSA provided for Mr. Clinton’s nonprofit foundation activities constituted charitable donations, for which the company was entitled to a tax deduction. The flights included trips to European capitals, Alaska, Florida, Hawaii and Mr. Clinton’s home state of Arkansas.
Mrs. Clinton’s use of infoUSA planes appears to be mostly campaign related. In one instance cited in the lawsuit, Mrs. Clinton “traveled at the company’s expense aboard a private jet from White Plains, N.Y., to Detroit, Mich., and then to Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and home to White Plains, N.Y., after calling the company the previous day in desperate need of a plane.”
InfoUSA paid $18,480 in January 2004 to fly Mrs. Clinton “and her four-person entourage” to New York from New Mexico, where she had made a campaign appearance and attended a book signing. Campaign finance records show that her committee, Friends of Hillary, made a reimbursement of $2,127 for that flight. It was not clear if any other candidate committees in New Mexico also helped defray some of the cost.
Her aides said that in addition to using campaign money to pay for some of the infoUSA flights, Mrs. Clinton used personal finances to pay for parts of any flights that did not involve political activities, like the 2002 trip to Acapulco. As for why infoUSA paid anything at all for a round-trip flight to a vacation destination, Mr. Dean insisted it was a legitimate expense.
“I’m not sure what they were doing down there,” Mr. Dean said, “but it was business related.”
=====
The above article was taken from the "rag" , the NYT
posted on May 26, 2007 09:57:28 AM new
Oh, so the "look into the intimate details of their marriage !" ploy didn't work so now you're squirmimng around THAT!
Well, keep it up, I prefer other candidates anyway
Your interest in their intimate life tells a lot about your LACK OF ONE !
LOL!!!!!
posted on May 26, 2007 10:02:35 AM newIF my party becomes history helen, so does America. Because we won't have a CIC who will not care about polls but rather what he feels we need to do to protect Americans.
Is there a socialist/communist that is running that you support, helen? Or is obama far enough left for your liking?
I'd doubt it...but you'll SETTLING for what you can get. A person who's more left than ANY of the others.
I won't accept anyone who refuses to see the threats our nation is and will face for generations to come.
I won't put my vote behind a politician who is MORE concerned about gaining power than protecting Americans.
And I still have faith in the American voters that after they see how DYSFUNCTIONAL the dem party has been since they've been elected.....they too will want a President with a BACKBONE...not some gutless wonder.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 26, 2007 10:30:52 AM newNot this time, Linda. Your party is history...clearly recognized as bad history by the majority of Americans.
Didn't Bush promise back in 2000 to clean up the WH and restore dignity. I wonder when he will start on this promise.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
"I won't accept anyone who refuses to see the threats our nation is and will face for generations to come."
Your president presents a threat to this country and to the entire world but you accept him without reservation. It will take a considerable length of time to rehabilitate the good moral reputation of this country that he has destroyed. And no amount of time will erase the number of lives that have been wasted by his illegal and useless war.
posted on May 26, 2007 10:56:36 AM new
I believe you should live in the ME helen, since apparently you so oppose OUR nation.
Your views are in a tiny, tiny minority of how Americans feel. They may not like Bush, they may not agree with continuing this war.
But they AREN'T anything like you helen. You and your ilk are against everything America does. And your posts over the years have proven that.
And your total refusal to acknowledge that MOST all the dems voted for this war....and NOW refuse to QUIT funding it proves their words don't match their actions.
A FACT you radicals just can't accept.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
And your fear of communism and socialism is so dated that it makes you appear to be older than the 58 years that you recently claimed. Relax. This is 2007 and no government in the world can be cited as a successful model of either communism or socialism.
posted on May 26, 2007 11:04:16 AM new "Your views are in a tiny, tiny minority of how Americans feel. They may not like Bush, they may not agree with continuing this war.
It's an overwhelming majority that are opposed to the incompetence of George Bush. You are among the minority who cling to the lie.
posted on May 26, 2007 11:08:31 AM new
LOL....the socialists are alive and well....serving under the dem party banner.
You fool no one by denying the truth.
And you are not ONLY a democrat, helen. Your political positions are MUCH further left and often are similar to the ones of the socialists and the small, but alive US communist party ideals/positions.
================================
And I was incorrect.....there are currently THREE books out about ol hillary.
I find it amusing how when a book about President Bush is published....you liberals drool over every word. But THREE books about hillary....and you're pretending to yawn.
Others won't be yawning....they'll be reading them and forming opinions if she's someone they'd want as our CIC.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on May 26, 2007 11:13 AM ]
posted on May 26, 2007 11:10:09 AM new
No, helen. I'm not talking about how many don't like President Bush.
THAT isn't what's important.
Rather how they see America going forward fighting terrorism or DENYING it's existance....like so many radical liberals do. LOL
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 26, 2007 11:12:46 AM new
linduh, """I won't accept anyone who refuses to see the threats our nation is and will face for generations to come."""
Please give the name of anyone who doesn't see the threats to our nation.
And, thanks to bushit, it WILL be generations to come.....great legacy...
"""I won't put my vote behind a politician who is MORE concerned about gaining power than protecting Americans."""
You did already. You're just too stupid to see it.
posted on May 26, 2007 11:14:39 AM newRather how they see America going forward fighting terrorism or DENYING it's existance....like so many radical liberals do. LOL
MANY? Which ones? Name them and with their actual statements saying that.
Linda, your ignorance is embarrassing. The fact that I would like to eliminate racial discrimination and reduce economic inequality does not make me a communist. The key to improving the level of equality is through education, so I support greater investment in all schools.
Linda says, "Rather how they see America going forward fighting terrorism or DENYING it's existance....like so many radical liberals do. LOL
NOBODY here has denied that terrorism exists. What a ludicrously concocted lie that is! Georg Bush has sidelined the war on global terrorism while he battles Iraq.
posted on May 26, 2007 11:30:45 AM new
Maybe I should word that differently helen.
What MOST of you radical liberals HERE support are communist leaders, dictators like saddam and argue against any and all American policy. You don't mention the previous administrations SAME foreign policy...you refuse to see they shared many of the same positions as President Bush does.
Over the years I have watched you complain even about clinton policies. So it's not just a 'party' issue with you helen....it's that you don't agree with MOST American policy, no matter which party is responsible.
What I also see is that most of you radicals never say anything negative about these communists leaders....nor those liberals who HUG them for the cameras. Nope you support their positions also.
Never see you raging at any of our enemies...their leaders etc...like you do against your own nations policies.
REMEMBER helen, the Iraq sanctions, as one example WERE supported by the clinton administration. And you opposed them too.
You didn't blame saddam for starving his own people, blaming his own people, nope you RAGED about how terrible America was to want to continue those sanctions.
I could give other examples...but you won't even admit to this one. So there's no point....other than to explain to others why I see you as being SO un/American.
And it's NOT because you don't like this President. You won't like ANY president that doesn't hold your same ideals....and most never will.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 26, 2007 11:47:37 AM newWHAT COMMUNIST LEADERS have we supported????????????????????????????????????
I have never supported Saddam Hussein. The fact that I do not want the United States engaged in a war against Iraq does not indicate a suppor of Saddam Hussein. I do not support the war against Iraq because a LIE was used to justify that war.
Unlike you, Linda I don't support anyone without qualification and of course I didn't support Clinton without qualification. I objected to the relentless bombing of Iraq and of course the sanctions which were more harmful to the innocent and poor children than to Saddam Hussein. Having said that, Clinton was more competent and a better president than George Bush. Bush will go down in history as the worst president in the history of the United States of America.
BTW...I don't rage about anything. That's your style. I don't lie. That''s your technique.
posted on May 26, 2007 11:58:41 AM new
Your denial, helen is just amusing.
You have posted your support from anti-American groups here over and over. Anti-war groups supported by communists and other international groups.
And you NEVER once put the blame for this war on saddam. NEVER once said/admitted that at anytime during the 13 years he yanked the UNs chains.....HE could have prevented this war.
Nope...it's all ONLY Bush's fault. Even though YOUR dem party voted FOR the war.
Because some of them have now changed their positions....flip-flopped .....then you continue to blame ONLY this President.
LOL heck you can't even blame YOUR own party NOW for not actually ending the war...when you know full well they COULD, if they really WANTED to do so.
And besides supporting all those anti-American groups.....you also denied once that SADDAM SAW the actions of you and your ilk AS supporting him.
So you can deny it all you want. You continue to do the same thing now....as you did back them. You defend the actions of the terrorists/and those they fund....and blast your own Nation.
At that time....I posted proving that saddam saw YOUR support as being in HIS favor...in agreement with HIM....against your own country.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 26, 2007 12:07:06 PM new Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. He wrote in The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism:
Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.... The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.... Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number.... We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State. (a version of the text is here).
you posted about the Clinton's marriage mean pretty much nothing even if they were true.