GOP congress blocked clinton...

[tinknocker44]

push for terrorism legistration.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/gop-congress-blocked-clinton-push-for.html

GOP Congress blocked Clinton push for anti-terror legislation
by John in DC - 9/04/2006 11:10:00 AM


CNN, July 30, 1996
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the [Clinton] White House wants. Some they're not going to get." ....[Hatch] also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.
So Bill Clinton, rather than just breaking the law as Bush did (then again, perhaps this is why Bush broke the law - he knew from history that the Republicans controlling the congress would oppose his efforts to expand wiretapping), decided to go to the Republican congress in 1996 and ask them for increased authority to do more eavesdropping in order to stop the terrorists - stop September 11. Senior Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, one of the GOP's top picks for the Supreme Court and a GOP committee chair, objected.

The Republicans stopped President Clinton from getting all the tools he needed to stop the next September 11 - well, no, actually they opposed giving President Clinton all the tools he needed to stop the actual September 11. Could September 11 have been stopped if the GOP had given President Clinton the tools he requested to stop Osama and Mohammad Atta from killing 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington?

Maybe we need to ask the Republicans up for re-election why they wanted to appease the terrorists?
President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.
There's even an audio clip of President Clinton practically begging the Republicans to give him the tools he needed to stop Osama and the terrorists. Trent Lott said no. Orrin Hatch said no. Do these men really deserve to run the Congress during a time of war?

[chillbilly]

Yeah Clinton was all for legislation and lip service that would address terrorism in a symbolic form.

The problem was much more grave than throwing resolutions and words at extremists.
Slick wille just didn't know how grave the threat was and he sure as hell didn't have the aptitude to address the threat militarily.

Nah, your boy willie had an abysmal record of ignorance on all things military and was apathetic at best in addressing America's threats.
That's a significant reason why America is playing catch-up dealing with terrorist's throughout the world.

[geerair]

Originally posted by tinknocker44
push for terrorism legistration.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/gop-congress-blocked-clinton-push-for.html

GOP Congress blocked Clinton push for anti-terror legislation
by John in DC - 9/04/2006 11:10:00 AM


CNN, July 30, 1996
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the [Clinton] White House wants. Some they're not going to get." ....[Hatch] also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.
So Bill Clinton, rather than just breaking the law as Bush did (then again, perhaps this is why Bush broke the law - he knew from history that the Republicans controlling the congress would oppose his efforts to expand wiretapping), decided to go to the Republican congress in 1996 and ask them for increased authority to do more eavesdropping in order to stop the terrorists - stop September 11. Senior Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, one of the GOP's top picks for the Supreme Court and a GOP committee chair, objected.

The Republicans stopped President Clinton from getting all the tools he needed to stop the next September 11 - well, no, actually they opposed giving President Clinton all the tools he needed to stop the actual September 11. Could September 11 have been stopped if the GOP had given President Clinton the tools he requested to stop Osama and Mohammad Atta from killing 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington?

Maybe we need to ask the Republicans up for re-election why they wanted to appease the terrorists?
President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.
There's even an audio clip of President Clinton practically begging the Republicans to give him the tools he needed to stop Osama and the terrorists. Trent Lott said no. Orrin Hatch said no. Do these men really deserve to run the Congress during a time of war? The congressional Repub. chickenhawks cried and wailed every time Clinton so much as indicated action.

Why the cries of wag the dog were deafening.

Even the Bush administration ignored the warnings given by the preceeding administration. Probably Shrub was too busy planning his next vacation to be bothered with National Security.


PDB-08/06/01

[James 3528]

Originally posted by tinknocker44
push for terrorism legistration.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/gop-congress-blocked-clinton-push-for.html

GOP Congress blocked Clinton push for anti-terror legislation
by John in DC - 9/04/2006 11:10:00 AM


CNN, July 30, 1996
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the [Clinton] White House wants. Some they're not going to get." ....[Hatch] also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.
So Bill Clinton, rather than just breaking the law as Bush did (then again, perhaps this is why Bush broke the law - he knew from history that the Republicans controlling the congress would oppose his efforts to expand wiretapping), decided to go to the Republican congress in 1996 and ask them for increased authority to do more eavesdropping in order to stop the terrorists - stop September 11. Senior Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, one of the GOP's top picks for the Supreme Court and a GOP committee chair, objected.

The Republicans stopped President Clinton from getting all the tools he needed to stop the next September 11 - well, no, actually they opposed giving President Clinton all the tools he needed to stop the actual September 11. Could September 11 have been stopped if the GOP had given President Clinton the tools he requested to stop Osama and Mohammad Atta from killing 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington?

Maybe we need to ask the Republicans up for re-election why they wanted to appease the terrorists?
President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.
There's even an audio clip of President Clinton practically begging the Republicans to give him the tools he needed to stop Osama and the terrorists. Trent Lott said no. Orrin Hatch said no. Do these men really deserve to run the Congress during a time of war?



Myth

Congress passed and the President signed the anti terrorism bill.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html

Congress may have been apprehensive about giving the President and the Attorney General too much authority because in their eyes the Muslims were not the terrorist. Just years before they defined terrorist as a American religious group in Wako Texas and with out absence of malice incinerated them including their children. They also saw American corporations operating legally as terrorist and haul them into court to separate them from their money. They also used the IRS for revenge. Good tools, wrong hands at the time. They got what they needed, not what they wanted to wage war on Americans and not the Muslims .


Nice try.

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528

Congress may have been apprehensive about giving the President and the Attorney General too much authority because in their eyes the Muslims were not the terrorist.Myth.





Just years before they defined terrorist as a American religious group in Wako Texas and with out absence of malice incinerated them including their children.The branch cukoos incinerated themselves.




They also saw American corporations operating legally as terrorist and haul them into court to separate them from their money. Myth.





They also used the IRS for revenge.Get real. Nixon perfected the art of using the IRS as a tool.





Good tools, wrong hands at the time. They got what they needed, not what they wanted to wage war on Americans and not the Muslims .Myth.


You should get a wingnut award for most creative historical revisionism, pulled out of your ass division.

[chillbilly]

You should get a medal for most imaginative and fabricated rebuttal.

[rob10]

OLD NEWS!!

[chillbilly]

regardless of it's age.
That's what helps us learn the lessons of the past there Robbie.....remembering it so we can keep corrupt Billaries out of office.
You're one of the first people to post an ancient article on the repubs if it serves your feeble arguments, so don't act like a puss and get sore when it's turned back around.

[rob10]

Besides, Hillary will be our next Prez anyway!!

[kim]

Typical of yellow dog politics.
Blame the other party, no matter what they do. You can always justify your bigotry by claiming they had bad intentions.

[tinknocker44]

Typical of yellow dog politics.
Blame the other party, no matter what they do. You can always justify your bigotry by claiming they had bad intentions

Do you know how stupid and hypocritical this sounds coming from a neocon? Its the game you windbags started with Bill Clinton.

[isitfixedyet]

perhaps this is why Bush broke the law
BLAME PLACING, lack or resposibility!
sidestepping the real issues, LACK OF LEADERSHIP!
perhaps this is why Bush broke the law
WHAT HAPPEND TO THE 400 BILLION, AND FIRING FEMA DIRECTOR
WHEN NAGIN ON NATIONAL TV CALLED FOR HELP?
CLINTO MESS THAT UP TOO, YOU STILL WHINING THAT TH OTHER PARTY IS THE REASON WHY BUSH CANT GET NOTHING DONE , WITH THE MAJORITY IN CONGRESS?
U WANT TO FEEL SAFE, AT YOUR PRIVACY LAWS CHANGED? NOT TEMPORARILY BUT PERMENANTLY?
YOU WANT COMMUNISM/MORE GOVERNMENT IN YOUR PERSONAL LIFE AND CORPORATIONS, USING IT AGINST YOU FOR ITS NOT INTENDED PURPOSE OF KEEPING YOU SAFER?
perhaps this is why Bush broke the law
perhaps this is why Bush broke the law perhaps this is why Bush broke the law perhaps thisperhaps this is why Bush broke the law is why Bush broke the law perhaps this is why Bush broke the law perhapperhaps this is why Bush broke the law s this is why Bush broke the law perhaps this is why Bush broke the law perhaps perhaps this is why Bush broke the law this is why Bush broke the law perhaps this is perhaps this is why Bush broke the law why Bush broke the law
IT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME? HEY BUT?perhaps this is why Bush broke the law perhaps this is why Bush broke the law