Buy WILLisms

XML Feed

Featured Entries

The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM

Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM

Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM

Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM

Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM

Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM

Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM

The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM

From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM

Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM

Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM

Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM

Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM

Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM



Blogroll Me!



July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004

Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008

Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008

The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006

Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008

Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007

Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006

A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006


Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori

WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):

The WILLisms.com Gift Shop: Support This Site


This Week's Carnival of Revolutions: carnivalbutton.gif

Carnival Home Base: homebase.gif


« Wednesday Caption Contest: Part 118 | WILLisms.com | Quotational Therapy: Part 141 -- John Edwards Is No Longer A Viable Candidate. »

Bill Clinton: Still The Lyingest Liar That Ever Lied

Remember last year when former President Bill Clinton, the most famous liar in all of human history, indignantly wagged his finger at Chris Wallace and claimed he did everything he could to kill Osama bin Laden?

Well, as I said at the time, Bill Clinton wagging his finger is a tell that he is lying - you can bank on it - and Mike Issikoff has caught Clinton with his pants down once again (so to speak). Andrew Breitbart, subbing on the Dennis Miller radio show, invited Issikoff on to discuss Issikoff's Newsweek article about the CIA inspector general's uncomplimentary report about the CIA's pre-911 performance.

The report also includes evidence that Bill Clinton authorized force to capture bin Laden, but not to kill him. According to Michael Scheuer, “there was never any ambiguity,” he said. “None of those authorities ever allowed us to kill anyone. At least that’s what the CIA lawyers told us.”

Posted by Ken McCracken · 22 August 2007 11:55 PM


Bill Clinton and his wife are all about non truth. That is what they do...

Posted by: zsa zsa at August 23, 2007 06:26 AM

After hearing about Rosa Parks, young Bill Clinton and his friends sat in the "colored" section of the bus.

Too bad that at the time, neither Hope nor Hot Springs had any public transportation buses.

Posted by: Bigfoot at August 23, 2007 09:13 AM

Maybe that is why his nose is so big???

Posted by: zsa zsa at August 23, 2007 10:07 AM

Not only that, but Clinton also said,

"We know that Saddam has WMD and we know where they are."

"We know that Mohammed Atta met in Prague with an agent of the Iraqi government."

"We will get Bin Laden dead or alive."

"I'm not that concerned about Bin Laden."

"Well, I don't believe I ever said I was not that concerned about Bin Laden. That must be a (heh heh) EX-aggeration!"

"I don't think anyone anticipated a breach of the levees."

"Heck of a job, Brownie"


"We will rebuild New Orleans."

Well, why not? You guys compiled an entire page of Dan Quayleisms and attributed them to Al Gore during the 2000 campaign, and a lot of people now believe Gore actually said them. Never underestimate the short memory and low intellect of your target audience, wingnuts!

Posted by: Susan at August 23, 2007 10:35 AM

Ahhhh, it's always good to see firsthand the clinical evidence of ongoing Clinton Derangement Syndrom! Let's see; it's now been fifteen years, and there appears to be no indication that the illness will be letting up or reducing in intensity anytime soon. Perhaps if the pharmeceutical companies invest sufficient resources into clinical trials, there may be some hope that the paranoid and obsessed Republicans with CDS can recover their sanity and lead some kind of minmally productive lives!

Posted by: legaleagle at August 23, 2007 11:52 AM

Yes, BUT pharmaceuticals have such strange side effects. Such as urges to gamble, frequent urination, increased sex drive and so on... The FDA approves of these drugs even with all the side effects??? Hmmm?

Posted by: zsa zsa at August 23, 2007 01:06 PM

Maybe Bill was on medication when he and Monica , uh well you know.

Posted by: zsa zsa at August 23, 2007 01:08 PM

Hey everyone! Nixon lied! And he was a Republican!!!

You guys are hilarious. If you think the Clinton finger wag is some kind of indicator, here's an indicator for you: whenever you have no counter argument or anything positive to talk about, you just pull up old Bill and scream "He did things worse!"

Posted by: MattM at August 23, 2007 01:26 PM

At least Nixon didn't cling on to the White House curtains in disgrace. Nixon was his own worst enemy. Bill Clinton is a cronic liar!

Posted by: zsa zsa at August 23, 2007 01:35 PM

Not only that, but Clinton also said,

"We know that Saddam has WMD and we know where they are."

I realize that these are things that Dubya has said and that Susan sarcastically attributes them to Clinton. However, Mr. Bill did indeed say,

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
(Interview on Larry King Live, 22 July 2003)

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
(Signing the Iraqi Liberation Act, 29 Sept 1998)

"...Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
(State Of The Union address, 27 January 1998)

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
(Address from the Oval Office, 16 December 1998)

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more 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."
(Address to Joint Chiefs Of Staff and Pentagon staff, 17 February 1998)

So you see, all that stuff about Iraq having WMD, being a threat to its neighbors and needing regime change was not invented by Dubya, but was known before he even came to office.

Posted by: Bigfoot at August 23, 2007 01:40 PM

One more thing. Nixon was not a lying Socialist either. He had the descency to resign in disgrace. Bill Clinton and his ugly wife need to get out of our lives. AND quit "TAKING" from the hard working people of our country. Not to mention "TAKING" advantage of women in the White House Oval Office...

Posted by: zsa zsa at August 23, 2007 01:43 PM

Susan and legaleagle raise reasonable points. I hope they attend to the responses.

I am not sure who the "you guys" are who attributed a large number of Dan Quaylisms to Al Gore in 2000. I didn't see it myself. I would, however, be cautious about attributing anything done by one person, or a small group, to the entirety of any larger group they associate themselves with. If you accept that type of example and reasoning, then you would have to accept it in reverse, and answer for any fool thing a progressive has ever said. I doubt that you want that. So the "you guys" appelation is a red flag to me that you aren't willing to be precise in your statements. Perhaps it was a slip in the heat of the moment. It happens. As to the quotes, context is everything. If you had quoted those particular items with their surrounding statements, the situations, and the questions they were in response to, they are much less dramatic and persuasive.

I will note additionally, Susan, that if you go over to snopes.com and follow the misattribution of political quotes, that Republicans fare far better than Democrats on that. I'm not sure you wanted to open that door. http://www.snopes.com/politics/politics.asp

legaleagle, your argument would be stronger if it were not the dominant media outlets who keep bringing him up. Conservative sites actually don't tend to bring him up out of the blue that much. When he comes into the news, either because he has inserted himself or because someone like Newsweek or the NYT has brought him up, it seems odd that one would criticise conservatives for commenting on it. Your expected narrative that conservatives are obsessed about Clinton does not let you off the hook giving evidence for it when you make that accusation. My belief is that the story comes from the Clintons themselves - it was always the strongest points of their campaigns and a way of deflecting liberal attention away from the fact that Bill Clinton wasn't all that liberal. Both Clintons are anti-conservative as a tactic, not progressive in ideology. Even now, Hillary's strongest campaign themes are that she has "stood up" to various conservatives, that they have "attacked" her, and that she will "fight for" people. It is viscerally stimulating to some progressives, but there's not a lot of meat in that sandwich, y'know?

It would be nice for you if there were a widespread CDS, as it would relieve you of the burden of specific argument. In this case, however, you aren't of the hook.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at August 23, 2007 02:47 PM

I should note that Bill Clinton has too much competition for the title of lyingest liar for me to agree with Ken on that vote. That's an awfully high standard. That the finger-wagging is a giveaway cue I agree. That Bill Clinton is, as Jesse Jackson noted, an unusually good liar I agree. He's above the 90th percentile. But the #1 spot? That I can't say.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at August 23, 2007 02:52 PM

But the #1 spot? That I can't say.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot

Well, I can say. its the imbecile currently squatting in our White House. Just a quick note to some of you: CLINTON IS NOT PRESIDENT ANY LONGER!!!! The idiot in chief is destroying the credibility of the USA, and you are going to waste words discussing Clinton? Why not discuss the worst administration in our American history? People in the future will discuss this and it will make them sick to their stomachs that we were to 'scared' to push back the fascist elements of this administration. Remember: the terrorists are not destroying the constitution - Bush is doing that. Is that clear enough?

Posted by: Tom at August 23, 2007 05:06 PM

You want to discuss the worst administration in American history?


Posted by: Ken McCacken at August 23, 2007 05:08 PM

Did the Clinton's ever return anything they took from the White House? OR did they get to keep everything that they stole?

Posted by: zsa zsa at August 24, 2007 06:20 AM

I like how the nutrooters are countering the position presented, that Clinton lied about the steps he took to capter bin Laden - events that affect us to this day - by telling us he isn't president any more.

No shit, sleuths. It still doesn't absolve that POS of his failures to take terrorism seriously or honestly, for that matter.

Posted by: Hoodlumman at August 24, 2007 09:11 AM

"Did the Clinton's ever return anything they took from the White House? OR did they get to keep everything that they stole?"

Clinton didn't steal or vandalize anything in the white house when he left. This was one of the first lies that GWB told and he hasn't stopped lying since.

Get your facts straight.

Posted by: ec1009 at August 24, 2007 03:51 PM

I like how the nutrooters are countering the position presented, that Clinton lied about the steps he took to capter bin Laden - events that affect us to this day

It's so cute to watch Republican fanatics bend over and blow assorted pieces of completely invented bullshit out of their asses to make Bush seem like less of petulant half-wit. They really think they can just babble on about what Clinton failed to do to catch bin Laden, a nonsensical bit of doltish propaganda worthy of the Imbecile-in-Chief himself. It might even be a bit less embarassing if Bush hadn't been President for nearly a year on 9/11, or if he haden't received and ignored a specific warning about the impending attack. Of course, Republicans are only familiar with the concept of accountability when it comes terminally ill uninsured children and crippled veterans, never for the Chickenhawks in Charge. The rest of us know the truth, however: that Bush is the manifestly unfit human being to ever shit in a White House toilet, much less occupy the Oval Office, and is personally responsible for every American murdered by terrorists on 9/11.

legaleagle, your argument would be stronger if it were not the dominant media outlets who keep bringing him up. Conservative sites actually don't tend to bring him up out of the blue that much.

A.V.I. asks that I respond to his reply about Clinton Derangement Syndrome, and I'm happy to do so.

Fine; there's no such thing. As long, of course, as we stop the bubbleheaded stupidity of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Real simple: They both exist, or neither does. End of story.

Posted by: legaleagle at August 24, 2007 08:13 PM

Well you got one thing right legaleagle, your Bush Derangement certainly is bubbleheaded stupidity.

Posted by: Ken McCacken at August 24, 2007 09:38 PM

So you KNOW Clinton's a liar, but your not afraid to cite his words if it will help kill, maim, and displace millions of Iraqis and let your country steal Iraq's natural resources.

Thanks for the insight into who you are.
I hope you rot in hell for assisting in these atrocities against human beings.

Posted by: Robert at August 25, 2007 03:13 PM

AVI said, "I would, however, be cautious about attributing anything done by one person, or a small group, to the entirety of any larger group they associate themselves with."

Hey AVI, can I assume you are against our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

One man's "collateral damage" is another man's killing of innocent civilians.

Posted by: Robert at August 25, 2007 03:18 PM

Wow, only in the fevered imagination of an America-hating leftist can bringing down a true tyrant and saving his people from genocide be an 'atrocity'.

How sick is that.

Saddam Hussein murdered as many as 2 million of Iraqis and Iranians, he was hated by his own people (remember those Iraqis pulling down his statue?) invaded two of his neighboring states, and used chemical weapons on the Kurds and the Iranians.

We saved the Iraqis from that, but we are the bad guys!

You must be mentally ill to be a leftist, and Robert proves it.

Posted by: Ken McCacken at August 25, 2007 04:24 PM

Wow, only in the fevered imagination of an America-hating leftist. . . .

I'm impressed how McCracken manages to compose all his comments bending over, as this one repeats the acrobatic feat of blowing big chunks of Republican propaganda out of his ass. "America-hating leftists?" Naahhh. Sorry, but we are America; over half of the American electorate now identifies themsleves as Democrats, while the proportion that identifies as Republicans is the same as those who, comically, actually approve of George W. Bush.

Every time some rightwing hack shoots the usual "America-hating" chestnut out of his flabby white ass, just substitute "Republican base-hating" and you've got it right. Leftists love America; we just detest the racist, authoritarian religious fanatics who worship George Bush.

Posted by: legaleagle at August 25, 2007 06:10 PM

"Leftists love America."

I am just going to savor that one for a while.

Posted by: Ken McCacken at August 25, 2007 06:29 PM

Sorry leagleagle, I was inviting you to a discussion. You are putting your energy into showing how clever your insults can be, rather than engaing the substance.

Tom, assertion is not evidence.

Robert, when you misrepresent other's positions with false equivalences, they of course become much easier to argue with. If you wish to have an actual discussion, however, you have to address the arguments as they stand. I will offer as a starter question: Are the US motives and actions in Iraq 100% atrocities, or might there be some mild positives that have occurred?

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at August 25, 2007 08:28 PM

Oh and ec1009 - that Bush did not elect to pursue what was widely reported to be true does not mean that it didn't happen. There are credible reports by some of the people present that the vandalism happened. While we cannot convict or punish people on that basis, it is entirely reasonable to continue to believe it.

It points up yet again what Democrats, in their divisiveness, have never understood about George Bush. Because they would never have let such a thing go by without making political hay out of it, they cannot imagine that anyone else would. That refusal to take the childish vandalism farther, Bush made a statement early on that he wanted to set a new tone and be a uniter, not a divider. More cynical Republicans have been criticising him for this type of generosity since the beginning of his presidency. We have warned that the Democrats would perceive this as weakness, not kindness, and take advantage of him at every turn. It is a feature common to narcissism, especially after perceived injury.

I have complained about Bush playing nice throughout his presidency, but as it draws to a close I wonder if he was right all along. We have lost many battles important to the country because of his refusal to play hardball; and yet, in the longest of long runs, his insistence on decency, however poorly it was received, may have been best for the country. Thanks for the reminder of yet another example of Bush's decency.

Now go on, tell me that it was the evil and calculating Republicans under Karl Rove who were always picking on the well-meaning Democrats, and created the division. I know the standard and stereotypical examples, chapter and verse.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at August 26, 2007 04:35 PM

I always enjoyed the Bill Clinton speeches.

From the time he was booed off the stage at the 1988 democrat convention to his latest appeals to third-world socialist countries and the old socialist Europe.

Bill Clinton was a marvel to the emotional listener rather than the thinking listener. That biting of the lower lip, the pouty look, and the unconscionable ability to look an honest person dead in the eye and point that finger(no telling where that digit had been lately)....and then lie.

Posted by: Eneils Bailey at August 31, 2007 02:41 PM

Forgot to add, there was a lot of attention focused upon clinton to see what component of his shameless morals he would try to defend in his next speech.

Posted by: Eneils Bailey at August 31, 2007 03:13 PM