Damage left behind in the whitehouse confirmed

[Cheyenne]

I thought there was a thread about this recently, but I couldn't find it at the moment. So...

Bush White House Confirms Details of Clinton Vandalism
With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Sunday, June 3, 2001 12:37 a.m. EDT
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2001/6/2/234023


In response to Democrats' demands for an apology over
allegedly false charges that Clinton administration staffers
had damaged White House property while departing in
January, the Bush administration has released a list of the
vandalized property.

Destruction of government property by Clinton staffers
included 75 phones that had been "tampered with," including
10 where the lines had been cut, the Bush White House said.

Twenty percent of the desks in the Eisenhower Office
complex had been overturned by Clinton staffers.

Obscene graffiti was discovered by Bush staffers in six
offices.

A 20-inch-wide presidential seal had been ripped off a wall.

One hundred computer keyboards had been rendered
inoperable by the Clinton vandals.

Pornography was left behind in White House photocopiers.

Trash was spilled throughout the White House counsel's
office, along with other assorted random damage.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer catalogued the
destruction for Sunday's Washington Post, but did not affix a
dollar value to the damage.

"The White House will defend itself and the career
employees," Fleischer told the Post.

"We tried to be gracious, but the last administration would
not take graciousness," he added, saying that claims Bush
staffers had lied about the incident forced him to respond.

"By getting the information out, we hope to put an end to this,
so everyone can go on with the policy and business of the
government."

In April inspectors for the GAO said they found no unusual
damage done by the previous administration, but later
admitted their investigation included only damage to office
space and not office equipment.

 

[Laurel]

Once again, Cheyenne, the article that you posted would indicate that the Bush White House is responsible for felony obstruction of justice. If they do have evidence of these allegations, then they are guilty of lying to, and withholding evidence from, Federal investigators. If the Bush White House did commit these felonies, as yourself and Newsmax allege, I will look forward to joining you in calling for Bush's resignation or impeachment.

 

[WriterDom]

I will look forward to joining you in calling for Bush's resignation or impeachment.

no, you'll have to try harder.. try putting forth some solutions instead of relying on Clinton's charm.

 

[Mischka]

In April inspectors for the GAO said they found no unusual
damage done by the previous administration, but later
admitted their investigation included only damage to office
space and not office equipment.

How did inspectors inspect the office space, yet not notice damage done to the equipment lying within? Some of the alleged damage seems quite egregious.

 

[WriterDom]

If you know anything about the mentality of the Clinton era of course shit happened. We've moved on and the liberals are jumping up and down like it's some kind of right wing conspiracy. Maybe you'd feel a little better if you put some ice on it.

 

[Guest]

Move on! hahaha

You don't just 'move on' after committing a felony. If Ari Fleisher really has evidence of the damage, evidence that he did not give to the Feds when they asked for it, then that's a felony plain and simple. If he's lying about the damage its not a crime but he does owe the Clinton staff an apology. There should be an investigation into this, if the damage really was done then there should be reprimands, but you can't just make unfounded accusations and smear the other party's reputation with no evidence. No matter how much you seeth with hatred for the democrats, there's this thing called justice and fairness. It's a foreign concept tp those on the far right but a good concept anyhow.

Mischka, that quote is from the Bush people not the GAO. Obviously if they saw the office space they'd see the equipment, they'd have reported what they saw. During the Ari Fleisher told the general accounting office that he had NO evidence of any of the damage. It's a crock. What if Clinton had claimed that Bush Sr. had demolished the offices but he had no evidence? Do you think WriterDom would want to 'move on'? bahahaha yeah right

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Covering old ground again...

The report alluded to damage and cleared no one.

Bush tried to be gracious.

A Democrat, caught in a lie, brought the issue up again.

Yes, there was some small damage. Bush tried to be magnanamous about it, but the Democratic Party would call that bean bag politics, so they tried to play very hard with the issue and it back-fired. They lick their wounds, forget it, and move on to the next lie.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Cheyene

See the Laurel Help Me thread...

 

[Young Knave]

Sounds like more republican propoganda to me.

The republicans provide no documentation when this thing is investigated. Then after the investigation is done, they come back with the accussations - relying on mental notes.

Too bad Tricky Dick's not alive anymore. Such tactics would have done him proud.

 

[Guest]

Covering old ground again...

The report alluded to damage and cleared no one.

Bush tried to be gracious.

A Democrat, caught in a lie, brought the issue up again.

Yes, there was some small damage. Bush tried to be magnanamous about it, but the Democratic Party would call that bean bag politics, so they tried to play very hard with the issue and it back-fired. They lick their wounds, forget it, and move on to the next lie.

I'm going to try to explain this to you, Andra_Jenny, I will go slow.

1. You say: "The report alluded to damage and cleared no one." The feds who investigated the claims say the found "no wholesale slashing of cords to computers, copiers, and telephones, no evidence of lewd graffiti or pornographic images, no vandalism at the White House." Explain to me how this statement alludes to damage.

2. You say "Bush tried to be gracious." Can you explain to me how feeding unsubstantiated accusations to the press amounts to graciousness. If he was gracious & the Clintoneers really did all that he wouldn't have mentioned it at all. Bush's people came to the press with stories of vandalism. They told the feds they had no evidence, now they say they have evidence. That is PERJURY, it is a CRIME.

Lets pretend that your right, Bush tried to protect *snicker* Clintons image. Why then did he bring it up to the press in the first place. He brought the stories to the press to hurt the reputations of Clinton's people then said he had no, ZERO ZILCH NADA, evidence to back it up.

3. You say "Yes, there was some small damage." Does this mean you think Bush's people lied? They told the press stories of slashed phone cords, graffitti, and porno left laying around. That doesn't sound like small damage does it.

Face it, Bush lied, you're covering up for a man whose as big a liar as Clinton. If you republicans really believed all that crap about honor and dignity in the whitehouse you would be outraged. Instead you make excuses for a liar, makes me laugh.

 

[Guest]

That was my post, why does it show as Unregistered?

 

[Never]

Laurel:
"Once again, Cheyenne, the article that you posted would indicate that the Bush White House is responsible for felony obstruction of justice. If they do have evidence of these allegations, then they are guilty of lying to, and withholding evidence from, Federal investigators. If the Bush White House did commit these felonies, as yourself and Newsmax allege, I will look forward to joining you in calling for Bush's resignation or impeachment.

"


Bad Laurel. Bad, bad Laurel.

 

[Weevil]

If I may weigh in here, the name of the thread implies that some measure of proof of these allegations was presented that backed up the claims of damage. All that was presented were statements from the Bush's staff. Are Republicans truly that sheepish that they'll accept stories as proof? More claims as confirmation?

Until they show us pictures of obscene graffiti(Which still wouldn't be 100% foolproof) they will still simply be wild claims that have no basis in reality.

 

[Guru]

 

[Unclebill]

The Same Old Tired Lies

It never ceases to amaze me the things people will excuse for their own perceived political benefit.

Little as I like the Republican big government program, it is a bit more constrained in its concept than the totalitarian Fascist government which is the aim of the Democratic Party leadership. The eternal manifestation of when the choice is between the lesser of two evils, you still end up with evil as your choice.

Bush is in a no-win situation with this issue. Presuming it's true and based on the morals and character of the previous resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it's all too believable, if Bush pursues and prosecutes, he's a vicious evil vindictive Republican who can't let go of the eternal stream of Clinton's crimes and scandals.

On the other hand, if he's gracious or magnanimous, he's assaulted by the same people who accuse him of that which Clinton did, e. g., obstruction of justice.

Likewise, he was handed a number of preset disasters politically set up by the Clinton administration. Among them are:

1. The arsenic levels in drinking water which have not changed in many years. They are the same now as when Clinton took office and the people in the Senate castigating Bush for rolling the levels back upon taking office voted to extend the EPA's investigation period to June 2001! It wasn't until the eleventh hour that Clinton by edict changed them without waiting until the investigation he initiated was complete. But the same levels were fine for his 8 years in office.

2. The Kyoto Treaty. The fact that the Senate (which is responsible to ratify any treaty) had voted it down by a 98-0 vote was never mentioned in the news reports that criticized Bush for scrapping it despite the fact that the Senate had already done so by virtually unanimous vote.

3. Energy policy. For 8 years Clinton and his thugs made every effort to sabotage America's ability to be self-sufficient in energy resources and production. Clinton by imperial edict placed off-limits huge coal deposits, natural gas and oil resources and using EPA regulation made the generation of energy more and more difficult without concern for the working people of America who have to pay far higher costs resulting from the increased regulation.

4. Global warming. Another scam as far as I'm concerned because the people now trying to sell this doomsday scenario twenty or thirty years ago were trying to sell the "Global Cooling" doomsday scenario. They have shown no real proof of either but they're getting lots of press keeping lots of people in fear of their doomsayer prophecies.

5. Education. For the past 8 years, nothing was done to improve the public school system. Today Senator Kerry was out talking the typical Democrat good game of education reform. Where was he the past 8 years? But he doesn't want vouchers, i. e., parental choice. He wants parents FORCED to use the public schools. If they had an alternative, the public schools would be forced to compete and the system would improve. But by forcing people to stay in public schools, ha can talk about improvement without having to actually do it. Another campaign issue kept alive. But to do so, the Bush plan offered MUST BE defeated.

The bottom line should be obvious to anyone willing to apply a miniscule amount of reason to the political developments over the past 4-5 months. It is painfully obvious that the Democrats do not want any of the problems on which they campaigns solved. The reason is simple: solving the problem takes away their campaign issue and makes reelection more difficult.

Since the Bush administration is offering real world solutions that will in all likelihood work, the Democratic leadership is fighting tooth and nail for their political survival and that means telling any lies and doing anything possible to obviate the solutions proffered by the present administration.

The electrical generation industry in California is a classic example of the Democrats and their political benefits vs the best interests of the people of CA. As you can see from your electrical bill, the political benefit was far more important. The deregulation that wasn't deregulation and the failure to permit building of adequate generation facilities has resulted in the present debacle.

Democrats have had a total domination of the CA legislature for the past 20-30 years and the Governorship for most of that time. In that time, they have shut down nuclear generation facilities (about the cheapest source), they have placed ludicrous limits on emissions of older plants effectively taking them off-line, they have approved only plants using natural gas as the fuel which was the most expensive and which has increased in price an order of magnitude in the past couple of years.

Gray Davis political future is held hostage by environmentalist extremists and he has no higher priority than his political aspirations. Otherwise, he would have requested the temporary abeyance of EPA regulations allowing dozens if not hundreds of power plants in CA to operate which would eliminate the rolling blackouts projected for this summer. He was told in a face-to-face chat with Bush in January, 2001 that upon Davis' request, the waivers would be granted. But rather than initiate the request, Davis continues to blame Bush for the problem he and his party created.

In short, it seems to me that same people who were willing, nay, elated, to give Clinton a pass on his criminal behavior are unwilling to look honestly at the efforts of Bush to actually do something positive. It seems they are content to publicly broadcast their own shallowness and reluctance to judge people on honest terms.

 

[Guest]

Re: The Same Old Tired Lies

It never ceases to amaze me the things people will excuse for their own perceived political benefit.

I totally agree Unclebill. Shrub lied one way or the other, either to the press or to the GSA. Again I'll repeat myself, he told the GSA that he had no proof of any damage. If he does have proof and withheld it from the GSA that's a lie. If he lied to the GSA that's perjury. If his original statement that he had no proof is true then he's lying now. How can you defend a liar? Are you that much of a sheep that youll defend the GOP no matter how many lies they tell? No one yet has been able to explain to me how Shrub lying to the feds is better than Clinton lying to feds, maybe you can.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

See, Uncle Bill always says what I think, but because I am so stoopid and direct, it does not come out nearly as eloquent.

 

[Unclebill]

Re: Re: The Same Old Tired Lies

Originally posted by Vic Victorious
...No one yet has been able to explain to me how Shrub lying to the feds is better than Clinton lying to feds, maybe you can.

When you wish to ignore reality, life is such a nice fantasyland (until reality comes crashing in on you).

And just for the record, Clinton didn't lie to the Feds, he perjured himself in a civil suit, not a criminal court and I believe it was NOT a Federal court.

If the vandalism occurred, Bush was handed a no-win situation because of people like you who cannot distinguish between the criminal act of perjury (Clinton perjuring himself and suborning perjury of another party in a civil suit in which he was the defendant) and Bush ignoring what amounts to petty vandalism because he was to be publicly crucified in the press by the mindless followership of the Liberal ideology.

Had Bush pursued this and prosecuted the people involved, he would have been crucified by you and you fellow Liberals as a vindictive bastard who can't get over it.

The difference, since it must be laid out in distinct specifics is simply this: Clinton lied in a civil case for his own personal benefit and for no other reason. Bush made a political decision to pursue the course of action he deemed most beneficial to the country, i. e., the course of action resulting in less strident rhetoric from his political enemies who are not bound by any constraints of decency or honor and which would have been a greater detraction from his efforts to actually put forth something positive.

Granted this is my perception and I realize that from the Liberal perspective, that's inconceivable but it's quite probably much closer to reality.

 

[Purple Haze]

Re: Re: Re: The Same Old Tired Lies

When you wish to ignore reality, life is such a nice fantasyland (until reality comes crashing in on you).

If the vandalism occurred, Bush was handed a no-win situation because of people like you who cannot distinguish between the criminal act of perjury (Clinton perjuring himself and suborning perjury of another party in a civil suit in which he was the defendant) and Bush ignoring what amounts to petty vandalism because he was to be publicly crucified in the press by the mindless followership of the Liberal ideology.

Your brain doesn't even have room for the possibility that the vandalism didn't occur. Fantasyland, my ass.

 

[*Lazer*]

Ahhhh Laurel such a way with words~~~

Purple you really do crack me up

 

[unusuallyconfused]

I'd like to see a report from a credible news source. Something like the Wall Street Journal, or The Economist, or... any. For some reason, repeatedly quoting newsmax.com doesn't impress me.

I totally agree!!!!!!! It is so ridiculous to try to make heads or tails out of any story with various slants on the reporting, then the "group" puts their slant on it and what do you have left, a bunch of shit. Even though I lean more to the right then left on social policies, I truly despise our political process any more. Even here, it is very dividing. It usually does not solve anything because neither side believes what the other is saying as factual. Depressing.

Now I'm a lover not a fighter, so be easy on me when you ream my ass.

 

[Young Knave]

God Damn!

You conservatives aggravate me to no end. If Bush wanted to be so damend magnominious, why did he ever bring it up in the first place? As to your claim that the press is so liberal that it won't print anything negative about the Clinton's, no matter how convincing the proof - WHAT KIND OF FANTASY WORLD ARE YOU LIVING IN?

The press coverage of this incident was extremely negative towards the Clintons from the outset. The assumption from the beginning was that the allegations were true. At the time of the innaugoration the Clintons were being blasted constantly by the press. Where the F(*& do you get this notion that the press will turn everything the Clintons do against the Republicans somehow.And again, if Bush was so afraid of the press turning it against him, why did they make so much of it in the first place???!!! They were the one's pushing the GD'd story. It wasn't until the investigation happened and they couldn't produce any proof that they started talking about how they wanted to be be nice with the Clintons. Then when the investigation's done, they come right back with the alligations, as if simply repeating the allegations are proof that they happened. Are you people out of your minds?

It truly is frightening how out of touch american conservatives are with reality,especially now that they are in power. I wasn't alive during McCarthyism, but it certainly isn't hard to see how that happened. It's almost enough to make you vote Democrat.

Sorry about bringing this old post back up, but I just had to respond to this. Unbelievable.

 

[Scruffy]

Did you notice that there is a month long gap between your post and the one previous. Let sleeping dogs lie boy.

 

[Unclebill]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Same Old Tired Lies

Originally posted by Purple Haze
Your brain doesn't even have room for the possibility that the vandalism didn't occur. Fantasyland, my ass.

When did I intimate that it dd not occur? I merely said that the Bush Administration has a no-win situation regardless.

As far as the likelihood of the vandalism occurring, based on the criminal record of the previous administration, I find it imminently believable, merely pointless for the Bush people to pursue.

And the furor here most eloquently supports my point.

 

[Weevil]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Same Old Tired Lies

When did I intimate that it dd not occur? I merely said that the Bush Administration has a no-win situation regardless.

Again, how is the Bush Administration if the Vandalism didn't occur????