dude, Ish don't lie.
There is no doubt Clinton went to the USSR. And the press is prone to speculation. If you think he is just making it up you are delusional. While there probably isn't a link to the story, this is the gist of it:
}}}}} Does it bother you that we have as president a guy who
}}}}}}couldnt normally get a clearance? It does me.
}}}}}
}}}}}I am sorry, did I miss something? Was Clinton ever denied a security
}}}}}clearance? I wasn't aware he had applied.
}}}}
}}}}I dont think he has applied anywhere, but that isnt my point. I dont think
}}}}he could normally get one do to his refusal to answer many questions
}}}}regarding his activities while in Moscow and elsewhere.
}}}
}}}What activities in Moscow? Touring Red Square like countless other tourists?
}}}Or do you have hard information that he actually met with some KGB official,
}}}and I am not talking about the "minders" that worked at Intourist either. Did
}}}he meet with one for the purposes of conducting espionage or sedition?
}}
}}
}}No, nothing like that. I consider the circumstnces suspiscious,
}
}Let me get this straight, you think that because a 23 year old Oxford student
}goes during winter break to the Soviet Union it is a suspicious circumstance?
}And that is it?
When it is difficult getting approval from the host country, and very
expensive, and the student stays in expensive hotels, and cant remember much
about it later, well, yes, I do. But simple answers would clear it up, and
there arent any.
} and would
}}like some response; response he refused to give to the Washington Times in
}}'92.
}
}Hmmm? I wonder how I would react to a right wing newspaper asking me a leading
}question like that? Well since I am not running for president, I would tell
}them to blow me.
Man, this kneepad thing is really prevalent among the Dems, isnt it? Would
you still tell him such if you just happened to have a cigar on you?
} I think he agreed to coordinate some aspects of his anti-war movement
}}with the KGB for their mutual bennifit.
}
}Other than rank speculation, what basis do you have to believe this?
Only speculation, based on what I would do given the objectives of the
parties involved, but only speculation.
} Is that necessarily treason? I
}}dunno, I dont think he would have done anything to deliberately cause the
}}death of American troops. But who knows? Thats why I would like to see an
}}investigation by anyone but Starr.
}
}Well you have to have a hell of lot more to go on then what you have here.
}This is the kind of stuff Senator McCarthy used back in the 1950s, taking a few
}scattered facts and put a sinister spin on them.
But it turns out that Sen McCarthy was right about everyone he named. The
Hollywood seven turned out to be unrepentant Communists till the bitter end,
some even remained loyal to Stalin after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
But I am not talking of an official inquiry into the matter by a prosecutor.
I am speaking of good ole investigative Journalism; the kind that went
extinct when Clinton got elected.
}}}}
}}}}} Not to mention the Constitution
}}}}}doesn't require one.
}}}}
}}}}Of course it shouldnt. but the refusal to answer is grounds for suspiscion,
}}}}IMO.
}}}
}}}He has answered! He was tourist on a student holiday during the Christmas
}}}break.
}}A tourist doing what, picniking on the Volga? Gimme a break.
}
}Touring, taking a vacation, seeing the sights, visiting Red Square, etc.
}Things that tourists have done in Russia dating back to Ivan the Terrible's
}days.
Ok, whatever.
}}
}}} I am fairly sure if I refused to answer any questions on foreign travel
}}}}I would get my clearance app revoked.
}}}
}}}Who asked him about it? What office debriefed him?
}}
}}The press, apparently organs in the Rightwing conspiracy, Hilary talks
}}about.
}
}Well if it was the Washington Times or the American Spectator, I would answer
}them either.
And Salon is any better? Or the New Republic? Or the Wash Post (sans
international section)?
}}}}
}}}}}I find this whole Moscow business the classic example of
}}}}}the lengths that Clnton haters have taken for years against him. Is there
}}}}}proof that he met with KGB officials for instance, that would justify such
}}}}}outlandish accusations?
}}}}
}}}}No, but the Lefts standard of evidence gets pretty high when dealing with
}}}}one of there own.
}}}
}}}I am looking for even one shred of evidence that Clinton went to the Soviet
}}}Union for purposes other than tourism. So far there isn't any.
}}
}}And thanks to someone at the State Dept, there wont be any.
}
}In order to establish a crime, you must first prove a crime was committed.
Thats true, no body, no murder.
}}
}}}}
}}}}Amazingly low when conservatives are in the sights. Remember Chuck Colson's
}}}}_one_ FBI file? The Pres has ove a thousand!
}}}
}}}What does this have to do with your lack of evidence that Clinton was doing
}}}anything in the USSR other than sampling vodka or piroshki?
}}
}}Nothing, other than a general reference on Clintons personal character; as
}}if that is needed anymore.
}
}I see. So having an over developed libidio is automatic grounds to assume one
}is a communist agent? Or perhaps it is because he has lied, that is now the
}grounds as well?
I never said he was a Comunist agent, only that I suspect he cooperated with
some he knew were KGB to accomplish what he regarded as a worthy end. To
many this is treason, to me it is at best foolishness, at worst cynical
political maneuvering that probably caught the attention of some powerful
people.
}}}}}}
}}}}}}} This has
}}}}}}}characterized most the extreme right's views since, more hatred and loathing
}}}}}}}then actual facts.
}}}}}}
}}}}}}Why is concern about National Security an 'extreme' issue?
}}}}}
}}}}}When it is done on such a stupid bit on nonsense such as extrapolating a theory
}}}}}that Clinton was a communist spy because he went to Moscow during his school
}}}}}break. Isn't sucha comment a little extreme?
}}}}
}}}}
}}}}Not in the circumstances.
}}}
}}}How? DId he meet with a KGB official, and know that he/she was a KGB official?
}}} I mean, come on here, you don't much more than speculation here, the kind that
}}}brought ridicule to B-1 Bob for this antics on the House floor in 1992.
}}
}}Dunno, why wont he tell us himself?
}
}Because it is a ridiculous question. BTW what was his exact response to the
}Washington TImes anyway?
I believe it was along the lines of, " ".
more fascinating discussion at groups.google.com |
