Hey, Bill Clinton, YOU Of ALL People Shouldn’t Be Talking About Other People’s ‘Messes’

The ONLY president whose “mess” is literally staining the blue dress of an intern talked about George Bush and Dick Cheney’s “mess.”

So maybe you should just shut the hell up about “messes,” huh, Slick Willie?

At least Dick Cheney never had to redefine the word “is” in order to get his dishonest ass not only impeached but get his law license stripped from him FOR PERJURY.

But let me point out a little bit more about another Bill Clinton “mess”: we call it the 9/11 attack.  Given that Iraq falling to pieces six years into to Obama’s presidency is “Cheney’s mess,” just how much are YOU to blame for the “mess” that George Bush found himself in when you’d been out of office for less than eight months???

Let’s see what Slick Willie had to say about Dick Cheney:

Clinton Says Cheney Criticism of Obama on Iraq Was ‘Unseemly’
By Erin McClam

Former President Bill Clinton told NBC News on Tuesday that former Vice President Dick Cheney’s recent remarks on Iraq amounted to “attacking the administration for not doing an adequate job of cleaning up the mess that he made.”

Cheney, in an Op-Ed and a YouTube video last week, said that President Barack Obama had emboldened jihadists by mishandling the crisis in Iraq, where Sunni insurgents have rampaged across northern cities.

Clinton responded in an interview from Denver, where he is hosting a conference of the Clinton Global Initiative, his post-presidency foundation.

“I believe if they hadn’t gone to war in Iraq, none of this would be happening,” the former president told David Gregory in the interview, which will air Sunday on “Meet the Press.”

He continued: “Mr. Cheney has been incredibly adroit for the last six years or so attacking the administration for not doing an adequate job of cleaning up the mess that he made. I think it’s unseemly.”

“And I give President Bush, by the way, a lot of credit for trying to stay out of this debate and letting other people work through it.”

In an Op-Ed for The Wall Street Journal, written with his daughter Liz, Cheney wrote that Obama “abandoned” Iraq by withdrawing American troops in 2011 without leaving some forces behind.

“Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many,” the former vice president wrote. He concluded that Obama was securing a legacy “as the man who betrayed our past and squandered our freedom.”

In 2007, during his wife’s presidential campaign, Clinton said that he “opposed Iraq from the beginning.” His aides told reporters that Clinton had supported giving weapons inspectors more time.

In May 2003, two months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Clinton said that he supported President George W. Bush’s authority “to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” according to The Associated Press. He was also quoted praising Bush’s early handling of the conflict, the AP reported.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a senator in 2002, voted for the authorization of force against Iraq. She wrote in her recently released memoir, “Hard Choices,” that she “got it wrong. Plain and simple.”

I mean, really, President Sperm?  UNSEEMLY, you say?  I mean, boy, THERE’S a word that certainly applies to YOU.

But let’s consider Slick Willie’s rather bogus arguments first.

What did Bill Clinton USE to say about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction???

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”  –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”  –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Bill Clinton – mind you this was BEFORE the gigantic attack on the homeland of the United States – ordered an attack against Iraq.  What did he say in ordering that attack?

Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. [..]

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party’s other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM’s ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM’s effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM’s questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, “Iraq’s conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

Clearly, even Bill Clinton says we tried the diplomatic route – and exhausted it – to no avail.  Next we spanked Saddam.  When diplomacy fails and the spanking fails, what the hell do you do?

You demonize the president who made the decision after the fact, of course.  While saying “Shame on you for doing to Obama the same thing that I’m doing now to Bush.”

What did Hillary say?

 “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”  — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Hillary couldn’t wait to share in the credit for when we got that rat bastard Saddam:

I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after.

But there’s more here about Bill Clinton’s “mess” than the one one the blue dress.  There’s the fact that eight months after you perjured your way out of office with your sperm on Monica Lewinsky’s dress, ALL of the nineteen terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/2001 were already in America.  They ALL had their marching orders, following a plan and tactics that had been formulated during YOUR presidency.

It was because of Bill Clinton’s utterly weak and failed response to Islamist aggression in Somalia that led a man named Osama bin Laden to believe that America was a “paper tiger” and ripe for a massive attack:

“Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…” — Osama bin Laden

Bill Clinton left America weak and blind by gutting our military and by gutting our intelligence capability:

Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.” The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

Then there’s the DotCom Bubble collapse.  Did you know that thanks to Bill Clinton, $7.1 TRILLION in American wealth was vaporized and a whopping 78% of the major Nasdaq valuation was destroyed, in ADDITION to the 9/11 attack that he left George Bush with???

Bill Clinton – shortly before leaving office (almost as if he knew it would be a disaster) greatly expanded the Community Reinvestment Act which was the primary cause of the 2008 crash.

Bill Clinton left George Bush not with answers to the terrorists he had allowed  first to become emboldened and next to actually enter America and plan their massive attack and not with answers to the RECESSION he passed to George W. Bush, but instead left George Bush with the disgusting task of trying to clean all of Bill Clinton’s PORN out of the White House computers.

George Bush spent the rest of his presidency cleaning up your messes, Bill, you vile hypocrite.

The last thing this nation needs is another dishonest leftist hypocrite to run America even further into abject defeat than it is already.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Hey, Bill Clinton, YOU Of ALL People Shouldn’t Be Talking About Other People’s ‘Messes’”

  1. dog walker Says:

    This is Newsweek’s last cover before they go out of business and they were
    always one of the most liberal periodicals.

    WOW! Newsweek COVER!!! It is their last cover before they fold. Also read
    the article at the end. Wonderful article!!

    AMAZING!!! The Cover of Liberal Newsweek Magazine:

    Finally, Matt Patterson and Newsweek speak out aboutObama. This is timely
    and tough. As many of you know, Newsweek has a reputation for being
    extremely liberal. The fact that their editor saw fit to print the
    following article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest
    Newsweek, makes this a truly amazing event, and a news story in and of
    itself. At last, the truth about our President and his agenda are starting
    to trickle through the protective wall built around him by the liberal

    *I Too Have Become Disillusioned*

    *By Matt Patterson (Newsweek Columnist – Opinion Writer)*

    *Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as
    an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of
    mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they
    will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so
    many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the
    world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?=

    *Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life:
    ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and
    test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer;” a
    brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and
    in fact nearly devoid of his attention, less often did he vote “present”);
    and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the
    entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.*

    *He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation
    as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling
    associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades
    served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor;” a real-life, actual terrorist who
    served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a
    future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man
    elected president?*

    *Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz
    addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no
    white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of
    America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers,
    would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and
    therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with
    protesters against various American injustices, even if they were ‘a bit’
    extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass –
    held to a lower standard because of the color of his skin.*

    *Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter
    when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said)
    “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the
    first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?*

    *Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama
    phenomenon – affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But
    certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws
    and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and
    especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.*

    *Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves
    on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they
    are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor
    performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don’t care if
    these minority students fail; liberals aren’t around to witness the
    emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist
    policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a
    separate standard merely because of the color of his skin – that’s
    affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn’t racism, then nothing

    *And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never
    troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have
    noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite
    undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for
    the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was
    good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his
    life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next
    step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.*

    *What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every
    time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive
    qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama’s oratory skills, intellect,
    and cool character. Those people – conservatives included – ought now to be
    deeply embarrassed.*

    *The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clich=C3=A9s, and that’s when=
    has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can
    barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from
    his mouth – it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over
    and over again for 100 years. (An example is his 2012 campaign speeches
    which are almost word for word his 2008 speeches).*

    *And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and
    everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited
    this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is
    embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own
    powerless-ness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. (The other day he
    actually came out and said no one could have done anything to get our
    economy and country back on track). But really, what were we to expect? The
    man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act

    *In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the
    temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that,
    and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and
    prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such an
    impostor in the Oval Office.*

    (Wonderful article!!)

  2. dog walker Says:

    oops. sorry. I just redacted. I guess it is a hoax.

  3. FMC Says:

    Ah, too good to be true. The internet can be such a wonderful place…

    Well, whoever really wrote the article was spot on!

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    Well, as I understand the facts re: Newsweek, it certainly WAS bankrupt and sold for $1 – more than twice the actual value, according to many – to the husband of Democrat Congresswoman Jane Harman.

    Pretty much WHATEVER they say is worthless at this point, I would argue. Because they are so liberal if they say something liberal it doesn’t matter, and they are so marginalized that if they finally turn on the liberalism that drove them into bankruptcy in the first place, it is too little and too late to matter. I mean, all they’re doing at this point is trying to trade on the name from YEARS back when they were relevant before they decided that liberalism was the way to go.

    The interesting thing is that when I looked at your article by this “Patterson,” the first thing I saw was that it was from WaPo – which would have actually made it a much bigger deal.

    It appears that at some point Democrats WILL have to viciously turn against Obama. Because, for instance, how the hell will Hillary Clinton get elected if she says, “I’m going to give you more Obama!” So I’m guessing the “speak out about Obama” thing is just too early.

  5. Rose Says:

    I love this article! Finally someone who is speaking the truth.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks for the good word, Rose.

    Democrats are people who condemn others for throwing stones in glass houses. Even when they’re the only ones who’ve had any actual rocks in their hands.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: