935 False Statements preceded war

[dv8grl]

NO SHOCK.. but I love hypocrisy ~~~
Its OK to lie to go to war & risk thousands of lives, but GOD FORBID you lie about getting a blow job.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/...ormation_study

WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said

[Advertisement]

[freeby4me]

And why is this jackass bullet-proof? Why cant he be held responsible for this shit?

He LIES and it costs thousands of American lives and an untold number of Iraqi lives and what? nothing can be done? Bull shit. He should be charged with all their lives.

[PrincessArky]

NO SHOCK.. but I love hypocrisy ~~~
Its OK to lie to go to war & risk thousands of lives, but GOD FORBID you lie about getting a blow job.

exactly.....still think Ken Star should have to pay back the money used in that case but we know it will never happen

[Jolie Rouge]

NO SHOCK..

but I love hypocrisy ~~~

The Dems seem to have a lot to go around ....

Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2005 1:20 p.m. EST
Democrats Speak Out on WMD
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...3/133706.shtml

Perhaps Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) should have done some research before charging the Bush administration with "manufacturing” and "manipulating” pre-war intelligence relating to Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction programs.

In particular, Reid should have researched statements made by several prominent members of his own Democratic Party.

Republicans have circulated numerous pre-war Democratic statements on weapons of mass destruction since Reid blurred the line between the claims of the Democratic Party and the slanders of Michael Moore. Reid on Nov. 1 invoked Rule 21, accusing the Bush administration of purposely misleading the public in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Bottom Line: If the Bush administration was lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then so too were many leading Democrats.

The following is a list of statements made by prominent Democrats on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction program:

"According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons."

Congressional Record, October 9, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

"[It] is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

"We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. ... [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

Remarks at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, October 27, 2002

"There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed."

Congressional Record , October 8, 2002

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now - a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

Remarks at the Pentagon , February 17, 1998

"[L]et's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too."

Remarks at the Pentagon, February 17, 1998

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

Remarks at the White House , December 16, 1998

"[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people."

Larry King Live, December 16, 1998

"Remember, Peter, this is a man who has used poison gas on his own people and on his neighbors repeatedly. He's trying to get ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons. He could be a mass murderer of the first order of magnitude. We are not going to allow that to happen."

ABC News’ "Special Report,” December 16, 1998

"We know that [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his Country."

Remarks to the Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco, Calif., September 23, 2002

"Countering terror is one aspect of our struggle to maintain international security and peace. Limiting the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction is a second. Saddam Hussein's Iraq encompasses both of these challenges.”

Remarks at the American Legion Convention, New Orleans, La., August 9, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [America], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. And it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm. In discussing Iraq, we begin by knowing that Saddam Hussein, unlike any other leader, has used weapons of mass destruction even against his own people."

CNN "Showdown With Iraq: International Town Meeting," February 18, 1998


Cohen appeared on ABC’s "This Week” in 1997 to talk about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. To illustrate the danger, he brought a five-pound bag of sugar.

Cohen: It’s important when we talk about weapons of mass destruction that we translate that into something that the American people, and hopefully, the world community can understand. If you take a five pound bag of sugar and accept – call this anthrax (holding up a 5-pound bag of table sugar). This amount of anthrax could be spread over a city – let’s say the size of Washington. It could destroy at least half the population of that city. If you had even more amounts ...

One of the things we found with anthrax is that one breath and you are likely to face death within five days. One small particle of anthrax could produce death within five days.

VX is a nerve agent. One drop from this particular thimble as such – one single drop will kill you within a few minutes.

Cokie Roberts: Would you put that bag down please.

Cohen: Now I want to point out – I will spill it on the table – point out that he has had enormous amounts and I’d like to go to some of the lies that have been told about this, because originally, if we could look at this particular chart, the original declaration of Iraq, he said he had small quantities of nerve agent for research. We found almost four tons of VX – that little vial I just showed you – four tons of it.

[Jolie Rouge]

The right side of the blogosphere is all over the clueless media coverage of a new “study” and database compiled by “two nonprofit journalism organizations” that purports to show that BUSH LIED to entice American into Iraq. You would think by now that the MSM would try to spare itself some embarrassment and at least do a cursory Google search before casting the researchers as neutral, reliable, disinterested parties. But noooo. They dutifully published these transparent moonbat briefs for impeachment without disclosing the “nonprofit journalism organizations’” ties to BDS sugar daddy George Soros.

Big Lizards rips into the MSM omissions: http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/..._lie_abou.html

Here are a couple of inconvenient truths the AP story neglects to tell us:

* “A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations…”

The Fund for Independence in Journalism says its “primary purpose is providing legal defense and endowment support for the largest nonprofit, investigative reporting institution in the world, the Center for Public Integrity, and possibly other, similar groups.” Eight of the eleven members of the Fund’s board of directors are either on the BoD of the Center for Public Integrity, or else are on the Center’s Advisory Board. Thus these “two” organizations are actually joined at the hip.

* “Fund for Independence in Journalism…”

The Center is heavily funded by George Soros. It has also received funding from Bill Moyers, though some of that money might have actually been from Soros, laundered through Moyers via the Open Society Foundation.

Other funders include the Streisand Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts (used to be conservative, but in 1987 they veered sharply to the left, and are now a dyed-in-the-wool “progressive” funder), the Los Angeles Times Foundation, and so forth. The Center is a far-left organization funded by far-left millionaires, billionaires, and trusts…

…I’m certain it’s sheer coincidence that this nonsense was spewed across the news sockets during the peak of the election primary season… and right before the primary in Florida, of all states. Had anyone at AP or the Times realized how this might affect the election, I know their independent journalistic integrity would have suggested they hold this non-time-constrained story until afterwards. Say, they could even have used the time to consider whether “Iraq and al-Qaeda had a relationship” and “the relationship didn’t amount to direct cooperation” contradict each other.

A less charitable person than I might imagine this “database” was nothing but a mechanical tool to allow good liberals easier access to a tasty “two-minutes hate.”

But realizing that the elite media has only our best interests at heart, my only possible conclusion is that, despite the multiple layers of editorial input that must occur at these venues, several important facts just slipped through the cracks:

* The fact that the Center for Public Integrity is a Left-funded, leftist, activist organization with a serious hatchet to grind with the Bush administration;

* The fact that the Fund for Independence in Journalism is neither independent, nor is it engaged in journalism (it’s a front group of mostly the same people whose purpose is to shield the Center from lawsuits);

* And the fact that the vast majority of the supposed “false statements” are in fact simply positions with which liberals disagree, or else statements widely accepted at the time that later investigation (after deposing Saddam Hussein) showed to be inaccurate.

I must assume that these self-evident facts must simply have been honestly missed by the gimlet-eyed reporters and editors at AP and the NYT.

Ed Morrissey roasts the MSM’s recycling of the Soros-sponsored website’s old, not-news: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...ves/016723.php

…there is nothing new in this site that hasn’t already been picked apart by the blogosphere, and some of it discredited. It includes the debunked charge that Bush lied in the “sixteen words” of the 2003 State of the Union address. Joe Wilson’s own report to the CIA and to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence confirmed that, at least according to Niger’s Prime Minister, Iraq had sought to trade for uranium in 1999. The CPI site has the sixteen words posted as one of their false statements.

Let’s boil this down. An organization funded by known political activists puts up a website with shopworn quotes taken mostly out of context and misrepresented — and this somehow qualifies as news?

Hey, AP. I’ll be posting a couple of essays today. I’ll be sure to look for your breathless report on the wires later this afternoon.

Gabriel Schoenfeld at Commentary turns the tables on the “Center for Public Integrity” and the NYT: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/bl...choenfeld/2017

After delving into the database and reading the Center’s analysis, the question arises: did the Bush administration “methodically” lie to the public? The Center’s own answer is yes, and the same answer is the impression left by the news pages of the New York Times. Indeed, the paper reports that what the database exposes is akin to the worst political scandal of the American presidency: “Muckrakers may find browsing the site reminiscent of what Richard M. Nixon used to dismissively call ‘wallowing in Watergate.’”

Toward the end of its story, the Times notes that “officials have defended many of their prewar statements as having been based on the intelligence that was available at the time — although there is now evidence that some statements contradicted even the sketchy intelligence of the time.”

But that is an absurd way of putting it, minimizing and obscuring some central facts. Would it not have been more honest for the newspaper of record to recall that however “sketchy” the intelligence, it was not presented by the CIA to the administration as sketchy at all? Rather, it was presented as an iron-clad case, most memorably by CIA director George Tenet as a “a slam-dunk.” And would it not have been more honest to point out that the post-war studies of Iraq’s WMD program, like the Duelfer Report, had the benefit not merely of hindsight but the ability of investigators to roam freely through Iraqi archives and facilities? Back in 2002 and early 2003, when the U.S. was gearing up for war, things looked very differently than they did afterward.

This brings us back to the question which we began.

What is a false statement?

Did the Bush administration lie when it relied on the CIA’s estimates of Iraq’s WMD program, or is it the Center for Public Integrity that is now doing some lying, with the New York Times brazenly helping them along?

Lawhawk reminds the “Bush Lied” crowd of all the others who “lied” :
http://lawhawk.blogspot.com/2008/01/imagine-that.html

Let’s keep this in mind. The Administration based its statements on CIA information that both parties in the United States relied upon for more than a decade….how many of these so-called lies were repeated ad nauseum by the likes of President Bill Clinton, First Lady/Senator Hillary Clinton, Sec. State Albright, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John Edwards, and all the rest of the Democrats during the 1990s? It only came after 2003 that people realized that the CIA intel about the Iraqi WMD programs was found to be incorrect.

That’s not a lie. That’s bad intel, which was only discovered after Saddam Hussein was ousted.

Democrats Pre-Iraq War View on WMD's and Terrorism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B25jjXgzx78

[Jolie Rouge]

NO SHOCK.. but I love hypocrisy ~~~

Its OK to lie to go to war & risk thousands of lives, but GOD FORBID you lie about getting a blow job.

Why - when ever the Clinton "misadventures" come up - do you always return to this as a mantra ? As if this were the single and solitary mistep in instead of 35 years of past behavior that clearly demonstrates a pattern of a complete lack of ethics and at times outright criminal behavior directly by the Clintons or for their benefit.... Travelgate, Whitewater, the "Lost" FBI files, the FALN clemancy scandal, Rose Law Firm, Vince Foster, Ron Brown .... http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...e-choas-4.html

It amazes me how either devoid of logic, subject to a willful suspension of disbelief, or completely dishonest most liberals are; pick your choice.

Evidence shows that both the Clinton and the Bush administrations forcasted the same Iraqi threat to US security from identical intelligence sources, both administrations subscribed to Iraqi regime change to protect US security and both administrations used military options to achieve their goals.

So, the disparity in liberal reaction to these administrative similarities is because, a) President Bush is a republican and President Clinton is a democrat, or b) President Bush’s overwhelming military reaction was too harsh while President Clinton’s underwhelming military reaction was just right?

[quote]1998 Iraq Liberation Act signed by President Clinton

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm

‘…The Iraqi people are the first to suffer from the expulsion of UNSCOM and the cessation of all its activities. They have repeatedly been the victims of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. They call for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq…’

President Clinton signs Iraq Liberation Act in 1998…

‘…Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of any solution in Iraq. Therefore, President Clinton’s action today is the most appropriate response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready to help their democratic forces with arms to do so. Only then will the trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be free of weapons of mass destruction…’

Any organization calling itself ‘The Center for Public Integrity’ while calling for different penalties regarding the same set of circumstances should either consider changing their title, or applying their title to their advocacy more constructively.

Maybe you just missed the discovery of WMD’s in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein bluffed and he was called on it. The bluff was only realized after all the cards were on the table.

Liberals either fail to realize how big the pot (US security) was, or they are recreating the scenario of this hand for their own political expediency.

I remind them that, whatever their reasons, I don’t take them seriously on matters of national security.

Trust this, WMDs were found and reported:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081300530.html

http://www.energy.gov/news/1388.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3872201.stm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...3146-7380r.htm

Speaking of which, here’s an interesting read:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={D47C7304-B454-4294-8A21-DBEC5E2AACBE}

It’s an interview with Bill Tierney, “a former military intelligence officer and Arabic speaker who worked….as a counter-infiltration operator in Baghdad in 2004. He was also an inspector (1996-1998) for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) for overseeing the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles in Iraq.”

[dv8grl]

Why - when ever the Clinton "misadventures" come up - do you always return to this as a mantra ?

Anytime anyone brings up a Clinton you immediately bring up the Monica fiasco. I hate to steal such a great bumper-sticker but.. I will....

WHEN CLINTON LIED.. NO ONE DIED

I loved all your quotes., AS THEY PROVE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE LIED TO!

Originally Posted by Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.)
"According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons."

Originally Posted by Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.)
"In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program

THEY GOT THOSE "REPORTS" from somewhere... Hmmmm!!!

[Jolie Rouge]

Actually you see that I have brought up a NUMBER of other issues ... which you chose to IGNORE because it doesn't fit your view.

I loved all your quotes., AS THEY PROVE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE LIED TO!

These are all PUBLIC RECORD - statements made PRIOR to the current Administration. Your take on this is that the intel was good and accurate when applied to the Clinton Adminitration and flawed when applied to the Bush Administration ??

1998 Iraq Liberation Act signed by President Clinton

Defense Secretary William Cohen : CNN "Showdown With Iraq: International Town Meeting," February 18, 1998

President Bill Clinton : Remarks at the Pentagon , February 17, 1998

Vice President Al Gore : Remarks at the White House , December 16, 1998

Vice President Al Gore : Larry King Live, December 16, 1998

Vice President Al Gore : ABC News’ "Special Report,” December 16, 1998

Secretary Of State Madelyn Albright : Remarks at the American Legion Convention, New Orleans, La., August 9, 1998

[Let’s keep this in mind. The Administration based its statements on CIA information that both parties in the United States relied upon for more than a decade….how many of these so-called lies were repeated ad nauseum by the likes of President Bill Clinton, First Lady/Senator Hillary Clinton, Sec. State Albright, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John Edwards, and all the rest of the Democrats during the 1990s? It only came after 2003 that people realized that the CIA intel about the Iraqi WMD programs was found to be incorrect.

That’s not a lie. That’s bad intel, which was only discovered after Saddam Hussein was ousted.

[Jolie Rouge]

WHEN CLINTON LIED.. NO ONE DIED

Depends on whom you talk to ....

Vince Foster... Ron Brown ... Barry Seal ...

The Clintons, to adapt a line from Dr. Johnson, were not only corrupt, they were the cause of corruption in others. Yet seldom in America have so many come to excuse so much mendacity and malfeasance as during the Clinton years. Here are some of the facts that have been buried.

RECORDS SET

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance

- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*

- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation

- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify

- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly

- First president sued for sexual harassment.

- First president accused of rape.

- First first lady to come under criminal investigation

- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case

- First president to establish a legal defense fund.

- First president to be held in contempt of court

- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions

- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad

- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.

CRIME STATS

- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122


ARKANSAS SUDDEN DEATH SYNDROME

- Number of persons in the Clinton machine orbit who are alleged to have committed suicide: 9

- Number known to have been murdered: 12

- Number who died in plane crashes: 6

- Number who died in single car automobile accidents: 3

- Number of one-person sking fatalities: 1

- Number of key witnesses who have died of heart attacks while in federal custody under questionable circumstances: 1

- Number of unexplained deaths: 4

Total suspicious deaths: 46

[Jolie Rouge]

I mean ... who needs to bring up Monica anyway ...

UNEXPLAINED CLINTON PHENOMENA

- FBI files misappropriated by the White House: c. 900

- Estimated number of witnesses quoted in FBI files misappropriated by the White House: 18,000

- Number of witnesses who developed medical problems at critical points in Clinton scandals investigation (Tucker, Hale, both McDougals, Lindsey): 5

- Problem areas listed in a memo by Clinton's own lawyer in preparation for the president's defense: 40

- Number of witnesses and critics of Clinton subjected to IRS audit: 45

- Number of names placed in a White House secret database without the knowledge of those named: c. 200,000

- Number of women involved with Clinton who claim to have been physically threatened (Sally Perdue, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Juantia Broaddrick): 6

- Number of men involved in the Clinton scandals who have been beaten up or claimed to have been intimidated: 10

[freeby4me]

I think its pretty sick to compare Clinton political bull shit that THEY ALL DO to a PRESIDENT MURDERING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.