Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: tapakeg on September 24, 2006, 09:19:28 PM
-
Video about half way down.
Lot of blame dodging, typical.
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/24/video-clinton-vs-wallace-on-fox-news-sunday/
:noid
-
Clintons are NOT used to hostile interviews, and they refuse to put up with it
-
CW: When we announced that you were going to be on FOX News Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I’ve got to say, I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President? There’s a new book out which I suspect you’ve read called The Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said, "I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops." Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole
WJC: Okay…
CW: …May I just finish the question, sir? And after the attack, the book says Bin Laden separated his leaders because he expected an attack and there was no response. I understand that hindsight is 20/20…
WJC: No, let’s talk about…
CW: …but the question is why didn’t you do more? Connect the dots and put them out of business?
WJC: Okay, let’s talk about it. I will answer all of those things on the merits, but I want to talk about the context (in) which this…arises. I’m being asked this on the FOX network…ABC just had a right-wing conservative on "The Path to 9/11" falsely claim that it was falsely based on the 911 Commission Report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission Report. I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough claimed (then) that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said (then) that I did too much. Same people.
They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993, the next day after we were involved in Black Hawk Down. And I refused to do it and stayed
six months and had an orderly transfer to the UN. Okay, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk Down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down or was paying any attention to it or even knew al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of 1993.
CW: I understand…
WJC: No wait…no wait…don’t tell me. You asked me why I didn’t do more to Bin Laden. There was not a living soul…all the people who criticized me wanted to leave the next day. You brought this up, so you get an answer.
CW: I’m perfectly happy to. Bin Laden says…
WJC: And secondly…
CW: Bin Laden says…
WJC: Bin Laden may have said that…
CW: Bin Laden says it showed the weakness of the U.S. …
WJC: It would have shown the weakness if we left right away, but he wasn’t involved in that. That’s just a bunch of bull. That was about Mohammed Adid, a Muslim warlord murdering…thousand Pakistani Muslim troops. We were all there on a humanitarian mission. We had not one mission - none - to establish a certain kind of Somali government or to keep anybody out. He was not a religious fanatic.
CW: But Mr. President…
WJC: There was no al Qaeda…
CW: …with respect, if I may, instead of going through ‘93…
WJC: You asked, you. It (was) you (who) brought it up.
CW: May I ask a general question that you can answer? The 9/11 Commission, which you talk about–and this is what they did say–not what ABC pretended they said…
WJC: Wait, wait…
CW: …They said about you and 43 and I quote, "The U.S. government took the threat seriously, not in the sense of mustering anything like that would be….to confront an enemy of the first, second or third rank"…
WJC: That’s not true with us and Bin Laden…
CW: …the 9/11 Commission says…
WJC: Let’s look at what Richard Clarke says. You think Richard Clarke had a vigorous attitude about Bin Laden?
CW: Yes, I do.
WJC: You do?
CW: I think he has a variety of opinions and loyalties, but yes.
WJC: He has a variety of opinion and loyalties now but let’s look at the facts. He worked for Ronald Reagan; he was loyal to him. He worked for George H.W. Bush and he was loyal to him. He worked for me and he was loyal to me. He worked for President Bush; he was loyal to him. They downgraded him and the terrorist operation. Now, look what he said. Read his book and read his factual assertions - not opinions–assertions. He said we took "vigorous action" after the African embassies. We probably nearly got Bin Laden.
CW: [..]
WJC: Now, wait a minute…
CW: …cruise missiles…
WJC: I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him. The CIA was run by George Tenet, who President Bush gave the Medal of Freedom to and said he did a good job. The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came to office. If you can criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: after the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full scale attack/search for Bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we got (only) after 9/11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred Special Forces in helicopters and refuel at night. Even the 9/11 Commission didn’t do (think we should have done) that. Now the 9/11 Commission was a political document, too? All I’m asking is if anybody wants to say I didn’t do enough, you read Richard Clarke’s book.
CW: Do you think you did enough, sir?
WJC: No, because I didn’t get him.
CW: Right…
WJC: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including
all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for
trying. They had eight months to try and they didn’t. I tried. So I tried
and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and
the best guy in the country: Dick Clarke.
So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..
CW: Now wait a minute, sir…
WJC: [..]
CW: I asked a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?
WJC: It was a perfectly legitimate question. But I want to know how many
people in the Bush administration you’ve asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked ‘Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole?’ I want to know how many you asked ‘Why did you fire Dick Clarke?’ I want to know…
CW: We asked…
WJC: [..]
CW: Do you ever watch FOX News Sunday, sir?
WJC: I don’t believe you ask them that.
CW: We ask plenty of questions of…
WJC: You didn’t ask that, did you? Tell the truth.
CW: About the USS Cole?
WJC: Tell the truth…
CW: I…with Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s plenty of stuff to ask.
WJC: Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you’d spend half the time talking about…
CW: [laughs]
WJC: You said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.
CW: But, President Clinton…
WJC: [..]
CW: We were going to ask half the [interview time] about it. I didn’t think this was going to set you off on such a tear.
WJC: It set me off on such a tear because you didn’t formulate it in an honest way and you people ask me questions you don’t ask the other side.
CW: Sir, that is not true…
WJC: …and Richard Clarke…
CW: That is not true…
WJC: Richard Clarke made it clear in his testimony…
CW: Would you like to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative?
WJC: No, I want to finish this.
CW: All right…
WJC: All I’m saying is you falsely accuse me of giving aid and comfort to Bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia. No one knew al Qaeda existed then…
CW: Did they know in 1996, when he declared war on the U.S.? Did no one know in 1998…
-
WJC: Absolutely, they did.
CW: …when they bombed the two embassies?
WJC: [..]
CW: Or in 2000, when they hit the Cole?
WJC: What did I do? I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still President, we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now I never criticized President Bush, and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive theme when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive, systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever…
-
CW: [Laughs]
WJC: I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get Bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending Special Forces into Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise. We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that al Qaeda was responsible while I was President. [Not] until I left office. And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I did and no one ever asks them about this. I think that’s strange.
CW: Can I ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative?
WJC: You can.
CW: I always intended to, sir.
WJC: No, you intended to move your bones by doing this first. But I don’t mind people asking me. I actually talked to the 9/11 Commission for four hours and I told them the mistakes I thought I made. And I urged them to make those mistakes public because I thought none of us had been perfect. But instead of anybody talking about those things. I always get these clever little political…where they ask me one-sided question. It always comes from one source. And so…
CW: [..]
WJC: And so…
CW: I just want to ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative, but what’s
the source? You seem upset…
WJC: I am upset because…
CW: …and all I can say is, I’m asking you in good faith because it’s on people’s minds, sir. And I wasn’t…
WJC: There’s a reason it’s on people’s minds. That’s the point I’m trying to make. There’s a reason it’s on people’s minds because they’ve done a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression. This country only has one person who has worked against terror…[since] under Reagan. Only one: Richard Clarke. And all I’d say [to] anybody who wonders whether we did wrong or right; anybody who wants to see what everybody else did, read his book. The people on my political right who say I didn’t do enough, spent the whole time I was president saying ‘Why is he so obsessed with Bin Laden?’ And that was ‘Wag the Dog’ when he tried to kill him. My Republican Secretary of Defense, - and I think I’m the only person since WWII to have a Secretary of Defense from the opposition party - Richard Clarke, and all the intelligence people said that I ordered a vigorous attempt to get Osama Bin Laden and came closer apparently than anybody has since.
CW: All right…
WJC: And you guys try to create the opposite impression when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s findings and you know it’s not true. It’s just not true. And all this business about Somalia – the same people who criticized me about Somalia were demanding I leave the next day. Same exact crowd.
CW: One of the…
WJC: So if you’re going to do this, for God’s sake, follow the same standards for everybody.
CW: I think we do, sir.
WJC: Be fair.
CW: I think we do. One of the main parts of the Global Initiative this year is religious reconciliation. President Bush says that the fight against Islamic extremism is the central conflict of the century and his answer is promoting democracy and reform. Do you think he has that right?
WJC: Sure. To advocate democracy and reform in the Muslim world? Absolutely. I think the question is: What’s the best way to do it? I think also the question is how do you educate people about democracy? Democracy is about way more than majority rule. Democracy is about minority rights, individual rights, restraints on power. And there’s more than one way to advance democracy. But do I think on balance, that in the end, after several bouts of instability, do I think it would be better if we had more freedom and democracy? Sure, I do. …[Do I think] the president has a right to do it? Sure, I do. But I don’t think that’s all we can do in the Muslim world. I think they have to see us try to get a just and righteous peace in the Middle East. They have to see us as willing to talk to people who see the world differently than we do.
CW: Last year at this conference you got $2.5 billion in commitments, pledges. How did you do this year?
WJC: Well, this year we had $7.3 billion, as of this morning.
CW: 7…Excuse me…
WJC: $7.3 billion, as of this morning. $3 billion of that is…that’s over a multi-year [commitment]. These are at most 10-year commitments. That came from Richard Branson’s commitment to give all his transportation profits to clean energy investments. But still that’s over $4 billion [raised excluding Branson’s donation]. And we will have another 100 commitments and probably raise another billion dollars. We have a lot of commitments still in process.
CW: When you look at the $3 billion from Branson, plus billions that Gates is giving and Warren Buffet, what do you make of this age of philanthropy?
WJC: I think that for one thing, really rich people have always given money away. They’ve endowed libraries and things like that. The unique thing about this age is first of all, you have a lot of people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, who are interested in issues around the world that grow out of the nature of the 21st century and its inequalities - the income inequalities, the education inequalities, the health care inequalities. You get a guy like Gates who built Microsoft and he actually believes that he can help overcome all of the health disparities in the world. That’s the first thing. Second thing, there are a lot of people with average incomes who are joining me because of the Internet. Take the tsunami, for example. We had $1.3 billion given….by [average income] households. The third things you have all these NGOs [non-governmental organizations] that you can partner with along with the government. So all these things together mean that people with real money [can contribute] in ways that help people that before would have been only the object of government grants and loans.
CW: I know we’re over, but can I ask you two political questions? Let’s talk
some politics. In that same New Yorker article, you say you’re tired of Karl
Rove’s BS. I’m cleaning up what you said.
WJC: I also say I’m not tired of Karl Rove. I don’t blame Karl Rove. If you’ve got a deal that works, you just keep on doing it.
CW: So what is the BS?
WJC: Well, every even number year–right before an election–they come up with some security issue. In 2000, right before the election. In 2002, our party supported them in undertaking weapon inspections in Iraq and were 100% behind them in Afghanistan and they didn’t have any way to make us look like we didn’t care about terror. And so they decided they would [push] the Homeland Security bill that they opposed and they put some pill in it that we wouldn’t pass–like taking the job rights away from 170,000 people–and then [they could] say that we were weak on terror if we weren’t for it. This year I think they wanted to make the question of prisoner treatment and intercepted communications the same sort of issue until John Warner came and Lindsey Graham got in there and it turns out there were some Republicans who believe in the Constitution and their convictions…some ideas about how best to fight terror.
As long as the American people believe that we take this seriously and we may have our differences over Iraq, but I think we’ll do fine this election.
Even if they agree with us about the Iraq war, we could be hurt by Karl Rove’s new foray if we don’t make it clear that we care about the security of this country. We want to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, which they haven’t [done] in four years. We want to [..] Afghanistan against Bin Laden. We want to make America more energy-independent. If they want to talk about Iraq, say what they really want about Iraq.
But Rove is good and [that is] why I honor him. I’ve always been amused by how good he is. But on the other hand, this is perfectly predictable. We’re going to win a lot of seats if the American people aren’t afraid. If they’re afraid and we get divided again, then we’ll only win a few seats.
CW: Do you think the White House and the Republicans want to make the American people afraid?
WJC: Of course they do. They want another Homeland Security bill and they want to make it not about Iraq but some other security issue, where if we disagree with them, we are by definition endangering the security of the country. And it’s a big load of hooey. We’ve got nine Iraq war veterans running for House seats. President Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy is the Democratic candidate for Senate in Virginia. A three-star admiral who was on my NSC staff - who also fought terror, by the way - is running for the seat of Curt Weldon in Pennsylvania. We’ve got a huge military presence in this campaign and you can’t let them have some rhetorical device that puts us in a box that we don’t belong in.
That’s their job. Their job is to beat us. But our job is to not let them get away with it and if we don’t, we’ll be fine.
CW: Mr. President, thank you for one of the more unusual interviews.
WJC: I promise you, I was not trying to [..].
-
Thanks for posting that. I would have gotten very angry listening to slick willy and would have woken my room mate.
-
Ole Slick....
After three decades in politics he still dances around personal responsibility as deftly as he ever did.
If something goes right, he's Johnny-on-the-spot to claim the lion's share of the credit. If something goes wrong....well.....let's just say he reminds me of a scene in "The Caine Mutiny"....the one where Lt. Barney Greenwald (Jose Ferrer) dresses down Lt. Tom Keefer (Fred MacMurray) because of his scurrilous testimony in the trial of Lt. Maryk (Van Johnson)...
Greenwald: "You ought to read his testimony....he never even HEARD of Captain Queeg!"
-
Excellent post and a WTFG to WJC! Can he run for veep?
-
I'm not sure what is worse, the fact that Chris Wallace was disrespectful or the fact that Bill Clinton was dodging and unwilling to answer questions without being forced into them.
Besides, there is enough blame to go around... please don't make me go into a tirade why our two party system is a failure.
-
all you are all doing is bashing the other side, im tired of seeing one of these threads every week! get a life and find compromise!!! you are all acting like a bunch of children. i am a borderline socialist, but i dont go around saying that W. is a retard. we need to stop this stupid mud slinging and find common ground!!
*storms off*
-
Originally posted by Delirium
I'm not sure what is worse, the fact that Chris Wallace was disrespectful or the fact that Bill Clinton was dodging and unwilling to answer questions without being forced into them.
Besides, there is enough blame to go around... please don't make me go into a tirade why our two party system is a failure.
Wallace asked a revelant question, considering all the hoopla about the recent movie, and the fact that the Clinton people tried to squash it
-
makes you wonder if the blow jobs were worth it ...
the guilt has to be killing the guy slowly, sure sounds like it to me
-
:rolleyes:
-
Thanks for posting this.
-
classic billy jeff. makes me want to go and reinstall the half buried tractor tires on the street end of the driveway at 1600 pennsylvania avenue.
-
Wow... Did you guys read that? What exactly did he dodge? Sounds like he gave Wallace a slap down. And he answered every question.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Wow... Did you guys read that? What exactly did he dodge? Sounds like he gave Wallace a slap down. And he answered every question.
yes, and he used the same finger and talked the same as when he said "i never had sex with that women, not one time".
judge people not by what they say, but by what they do.
-
okay. he got a hummer and he tried to stop bin laden.
judgement done.
-
What pisses me off the most about this is that the same people who critisized the ex-Pres (and still do) are the same ones who claim that those who critisize the current President are "siding with the Terrorists."
Get some friggen perspective already.
Sure, "Slick" Willy failed in stopping the terrorists. EXACTLY like the current administration did.
Of course, Clinton also got a BJ and then lied about it under oath. Our current president simply lied to the American People in order to start a war where thousands (of Americans) have died and will probably go on for a decade at least, and that's if it doesn't escalate (Hi Iran).
Which is worse?
Makes you wonder if Bush had gotten a BJ from a fat chick we'd even be in this situation...
-
Originally posted by JB88
okay. he got a hummer and he tried to stop bin laden.
judgement done.
Same as Bush, plus a hummer.
I just saw that Rameus was saying basically the same. Anyway, it bears repeating.
-
Our current president simply lied to the American People in order to start a war
====
where is the evidence of this lie? Locate for me the definitive indisputable evidence that implicates anyone associated with lying to start a war with Iraq.
Prefer something that can be used as evidece of lying in court of law please.
Or are you just framing your response above to a "gut feeling" based on massive reams of political spin?
Thanks in advance.
-
I don't like Clinton, but I know someone doing what Chris Wallace was doing should never label themselves a journalist.
And no, I did not see Clinton dodge a question. I do think he has a different take on events then most do. A lot like Rumsfeld- he still believes we are being welcomed as liberators in Iraq and insurgents are messing up the celebration. As weird and out of touch with reality that is, I do think Rumsfeld believes that. I also believe Clinton thinks he did all that was possible to kill OBL.
I can understand how people enjoy this little game CW played on Clinton. Its out of frustration in the left wing media. But it doesn't fix anything, and it doesn't balance anything. Its just more crap on the pile.
-
Originally posted by Rameusb5
Makes you wonder if Bush had gotten a BJ from a fat chick we'd even be in this situation...
anyone who HASNT gotten a BJ from a "fat chick" raise your hand. (i have, and im not ashamed of it, fat chicks try harder:p ).
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Our current president simply lied to the American People in order to start a war
====
where is the evidence of this lie? Locate for me the definitive indisputable evidence that implicates anyone associated with lying to start a war with Iraq.
Prefer something that can be used as evidece of lying in court of law please.
Or are you just framing your response above to a "gut feeling" based on massive reams of political spin?
Thanks in advance.
Where is the evidence that he told the truth? Where are the WMDs? Where are the links to Al Quida (sp)?
Either the President was grossly misinformed by the people who work for him, or he lied to us outright.
Which is worse? I'd prefer that he lied, because it frightens me to the core of my being that the intelligence capabilities of our country (arguably the most powerful country the world has ever seen) is that incompetant.
To be frank, I think what has happened here is that several people who work for the current administration (not necessary Bush himself) really really really wanted to go to war in Iraq for a variety of reasons. So they tried to come up with ANY evidence at all to support their agenda and then used it to sell their plans to the American people (who ate it up with a spoon). Whether or not the "evidence" was actually correct or not was probably not scrutinized, since they WANTED it to be true.
Perhaps Bush didn't lie outright (he believed his statements to be at least partially true), but he didn't go out of his way to scrutinize the facts either.
I'm sorry, but when it comes to fighting a war, the "oops, we were wrong" excuse doesn't fly with me. They haven't even bothered to admit that they were wrong, either.
And no, I really didn't believe that Iraq was developing WMD's or was harboring terrorists when the current administration said they were. Not that that makes me special or something. I just wasn't willing to take their word for it, and they failed to provide ANY reasonable evidence to back up their claims. At the same time, there were members of the Administration who have historically shown a desire to invade Iraq. So I just didn't buy it. My final reservation was due to the fact that NOBODY seemed willing to talk about what was going to happen AFTER the attack. It was obvious that we were going to win the initial confrontation, but nobody seemed to say anything about what the plan was once Saddam was deposed. And here we are, 3 years later, still there, with no clear goals and with no clear pullout planned.
So while I will conceed that perhaps he didn't lie about it, he sure as hell didn't tell the truth, did he?
-
Originally posted by Rameusb5
And no, I really didn't believe that Iraq was developing WMD's
developing? he had them and used them, ask the Kurds.
-
Originally posted by SMIDSY
anyone who HASNT gotten a BJ from a "fat chick" raise your hand. (i have, and im not ashamed of it, fat chicks try harder:p ).
yeah, they want it more - they're hungrier rofl:t :D :D :rofl :rofl, but no, not me:noid :noid
-
That was actually a fair assertion by Clinton. Not that he's a saint, or even a great person, but he did try more than the current administration. He suggested that people read Richard Clarke's book, as do I. It's very insightful.
If George Bush really wanted to find bin laden, he never would have invaded Iraq. Least not till he found him. There were more police guarding the RNC convention at madison square garden than there were looking for bin laden. That's a joke of an effort and a slap in the face to Americans.
I think it's fair for Clinton to say that he tried and failed. He did try. Lots of right wingers have tried to shift blame to him. Very convenient. If they tried to get things done as much as they tried to appologise for the failures and inadequacies of the Bush administration, the war on terror would be won by now....
-
Originally posted by Rameusb5
So while I will conceed that perhaps he didn't lie about it, he sure as hell didn't tell the truth, did he?
You can't have it both ways.
He either lied or he didn't. You nor anyone else has any credible evidence that he lied.
As far as the evidence against Saddam it became clear after the invasion that the intelligence was wrong. Not just ours but many other countries.
Does that mean Bush lied?
No!
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Our current president simply lied to the American People in order to start a war
====
where is the evidence of this lie? Locate for me the definitive indisputable evidence that implicates anyone associated with lying to start a war with Iraq.
Prefer something that can be used as evidece of lying in court of law please.
Or are you just framing your response above to a "gut feeling" based on massive reams of political spin?
Thanks in advance.
what he said
the "lie" was over 10 years old by the time Bush Jr spun it to the masses
slick screwed the pooch and he knows it, you can see it on his face during the interview. I bet he'll make a great used car salesman in his next life LOL
-
Originally posted by 68Hawk
That was actually a fair assertion by Clinton. Not that he's a saint, or even a great person, but he did try more than the current administration. He suggested that people read Richard Clarke's book, as do I. It's very insightful.
If George Bush really wanted to find bin laden, he never would have invaded Iraq. Least not till he found him. There were more police guarding the RNC convention at madison square garden than there were looking for bin laden. That's a joke of an effort and a slap in the face to Americans.
I think it's fair for Clinton to say that he tried and failed. He did try. Lots of right wingers have tried to shift blame to him. Very convenient. If they tried to get things done as much as they tried to appologise for the failures and inadequacies of the Bush administration, the war on terror would be won by now....
Clinton good Bush bad. Got it.
next! :noid
-
The interview was completely inapropriate, IMO. Journalism has lost all credibility. Kudos for Clinton for responding to that point.
As for what Klinton did or didn't do... that's always going to be suspect. He filled his entire two terms with token gestures and no substance. I think his antiterrorism stance reflects that fundamental policy. He would launch cruise missiles during a slow news week. It's also important to make something very clear: He wanted to go in and do more and was stopped by congress who asserted that he was only doing that to overshadow the Monica Lewinski scandal. They were 100% right. But it shows just where all of congress was focused -> bipartisainship.
-
Originally posted by Mightytboy
As far as the evidence against Saddam it became clear after the invasion that the intelligence was wrong. Not just ours but many other countries.
Does that mean Bush lied?
No!
But he is the one who is responsible, who else?
wrong mission accomplished, now search to blame others.
-
"WJC: What did I do? I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. "
What a concept, Presidential Sponsership on Foreign Assasination...
Yo Hugo, are you sleeping well? What about the Iranian Camel Hummer?
Lets do Hamas too.... and well Hell never liked Putin either, shifty eyes.
And if Castros' Brother fell to a Bullet, who would care. Fidel?
Mac
-
Originally posted by storch
classic billy jeff. makes me want to go and reinstall the half buried tractor tires on the street end of the driveway at 1600 pennsylvania avenue.
Aw come on surely he has enough class to spray paint em white. Lay them on their sides and use them for flower pots.........:confused:
-
Originally posted by Mini D
The interview was completely inapropriate, IMO. Journalism has lost all credibility. Kudos for Clinton for responding to that point.
Faux News (TM) as usual...
-
Originally posted by tikky
Faux News (TM) as usual...
Whats usual is Willie not accepting responsibility for anything. Whats unusual is somebody finnally asked him a question that wasn't pure fluff.
Face it your boy can't stand up to what Bush has to put up with every day.
Wallace asked the same kind of questions to Rice , and Rumsfeld, when he's interviewed them in the past. Neither had a meltdown like Kilinton.
Unless the media is sucking up to him, he's a wuss.
Poor little Willie got pwnd.:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Shifty
Whats usual is Willie not accepting responsibility for anything. Whats unusual is somebody finnally asked him a question that wasn't pure fluff.
Face it your boy can't stand up to what Bush has to put up with every day.
Wallace asked the same kind of questions to Rice , and Rumsfeld, when he's interviewed them in the past. Neither had a meltdown like Kilinton.
Unless the media is sucking up to him, he's a wuss.
Poor little Willie got pwnd.:rofl :rofl :rofl
he sure did meltdown. funny for a veteran politician that weathered the numerous scandals in his corrupt administration with such elan to just lose his composure due to some fairly soft pitches. that's how I see it too he was owned.
-
He refers to Richard Clark a lot...and Richard Clark's book doesnt back him, as Rush pointed out in the air today.
Clinton seems to convinced himself he deserves an atta boy...and anyone who disagrees with that myth is a right wing hitman.
-
Why is it ok to ask Bush tough questions about Bin Laden but not former President Clinton? Don't they both share some blame here? I'm glad CW asked him about it instead of softballing him.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
where is the evidence of this lie?
Yeager, I'd put Frontline's piece on America going to war as a place to look. I forget it's name, but you might be able to see it on their website.
"Lie" being the case when someone reports something to be so when it is not.
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by Mini D
It's also important to make something very clear: He wanted to go in and do more and was stopped by congress who asserted that he was only doing that to overshadow the Monica Lewinski scandal. They were 100% right. But it shows just where all of congress was focused -> bipartisainship.
CLINTON: President Bush's neocons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They --
RUSH: Stop the tape. All right, exhaustive research indicates, folks, that there was nothing but total Republican support for getting bin Laden. The people did a thorough NexisLexis search over the weekend. A thorough LexisNexis search identified absolutely no instances of high-ranking Republicans ever suggesting that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden or that he did too much to apprehend him prior to the bombing of the USS Cole in October of 2000. Quite the contrary, Republicans were typically highly supportive of Clinton's efforts in this regard.
As a little background here from the AmericanThinker.com, prior to the August '98 US embassy bombings in Africa, there is hardly any mention of bin Laden by Clinton in American news transcripts, prior to 1998, even though bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1996, after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, Clinton didn't even -- maybe a couple sentences in his Saturday radio address which followed the bombing on February 26th of '93 -- he didn't want to deal with it. He told New York it was a local law enforcement issue, you people handle it, wanted nothing to do with it. No mention, hardly any mention of bin Laden by President Clinton in American news transcripts. And for the most part, the first real discussion of bin Laden by Clinton or by any US politicians for that matter began after the embassy bombings in 1998 and escalated after the American retaliation in Afghanistan a few weeks later.
"At the time, the former president was knee-deep in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, so much so that the press was abuzz with the possibility that Clinton had performed these attacks to distract the American people from his extracurricular activities much as in the movie Wag the Dog." But that begs the question, why did this possibility even get raised? It's because of Clinton's own behavior with Monica Lewinsky. It wasn't made up by a right-wing conspiracy, and it wasn't made up by a bunch of enemies out to get him. It was a direct offshoot and result of his behavior. "Were there high-ranking Republicans that piled on this assertion? Hardly. As the Associated Press reported on the day of the attacks, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) said the following on August 20, 1998: 'Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have to recognize that we are now committed to engaging this organization and breaking it apart and doing whatever we have to to suppress it, because we cannot afford to have people who think that they can kill Americans without any consequence. So this was the right thing to do.'"
There was Republican support for this, as I have drummed into people's heads constantly, and yet Clinton is out there convinced that Republicans were angry at him because he was obsessed with bin Laden. "Gingrich was not alone in his support. CNN’s Candy Crowley reported on August 21, 1998, the day after cruise missiles were sent into Afghanistan: 'With law makers scattered to the four winds on August vacation, congressional offices revved up the faxes. From the Senate majority leader [Trent Lott], 'Despite the current controversy, this Congress will vigorously support the president in full defense of America’s interests throughout the world.' Crowley continued: 'The United States political leadership always has and always will stand united in the face of international terrorism.'" Those are the words of Jesse Helms. Well, we know that's not the case anymore. The United States political leadership does not stand united in the face of international terrorism today under President Bush's watch.
"The Atlanta Urinal Constipation, same day: 'Our nation has taken action against very deadly terrorists opposed to the most basic principles of American freedom,' said Sen. Paul Coverdell, a Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 'This action should serve as a reminder that no one is beyond the reach of American justice.' Former vice president Dan Quayle was quoted by CNN on August 23, 1998: 'I don’t have a problem with the timing. You need to focus on the act itself. It was a correct act. Bill Clinton took—made a decisive decision to hit these terrorist camps. It’s probably long overdue.' Were there some Republican detractors? Certainly. Chief amongst them was Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana: 'I think we fear that we may have a president that is desperately seeking to hold onto his job in the face of a firestorm of criticism and calls for him to step down.'
"Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) also questioned the timing at first. However, other Republicans pleaded with dissenters on their side of the aisle to get on board the operation, chief amongst them, Gingrich himself. As reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Speaker felt the 'Wag the Dog' comparisons were 'sick': 'Anyone who saw the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, anyone who saw the coffins come home, would not ask such a question,' said the House speaker, referring to the 12 Americans killed in the embassy bombings. In fact, Gingrich did everything within his power to head off Republican criticism of these attacks as reported by the Boston Globe on August 23, 1998: 'Indeed, Gingrich even saw to it that one of his political associates, Rich Galen, sent a blast-Fax to conservative talk radio hosts urging them to lay off the president on the missile strikes, and making sure they knew of Gingrich’s strong support.'"
Even in the end, both Specter and Coats got on board the operation. "After reviewing intelligence information collected on bin Laden, Specter said: 'I think the president acted properly.'"
"As for 'neocons,' one so-called high-ranking member, Richard Perle, wrote the following in an August 23, 1998, op-ed published in the Sunday Times: 'For the first time since taking office in 1993, the Clinton administration has responded with some measure of seriousness to an act of terror against the United States. This has undoubtedly come as a surprise to Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi terrorist believed to have been behind the bombing... So Thursday’s bombing is a small step in the right direction. More important, it reverses, at least for now, a weak and ineffective Clinton policy that has emboldened terrorists and confirmed that facilitating terror is without cost to the states..." Go back to the top of cut three, Mike, re-cue the thing. Now that you've heard all of the evidence of how the Republicans, the neocons, supported this, urged all of their supporters to get behind it on the basis that the country comes together in times of war, in times of attacks on American citizens internationally, Bill Clinton on Fox News Sunday claimed that Republicans were obsessed with his obsession with bin Laden, claimed that he was obsessed with bin Laden, were being critical. Here from the top the whole bite now.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Wow... Did you guys read that? What exactly did he dodge? Sounds like he gave Wallace a slap down. And he answered every question.
You should realize that Chariboy's post is not the complete interview. He left out much with the ....
-
How can you guys read that and still try to criticize Clinton? Some of you are so ingrained in your Right Wing/Left Wing bias, that you can't think for yourselves. I don't use new outlets to make decisions for me, I use them to educate myself on the events. Give me the objective facts, not your skewed opinions.
Following either party blindly is a bad idea. Educate yourself on the big picture and then work on the details.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
How can you guys read that and still try to criticize Clinton? Some of you are so ingrained in your Right Wing/Left Wing bias, that you can't think for yourselves. I don't use new outlets to make decisions for me, I use them to educate myself on the events. Give me the objective facts, not your skewed opinions.
Following either party blindly is a bad idea. Educate yourself on the big picture and then work on the details.
I watched the interview and my opinion of Clinton would have dropped lower if that were possible.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Following either party blindly is a bad idea. Educate yourself on the big picture and then work on the details.
AMEN
Like Rush is a good example of a human being to listen to?
LePaul- Clarke's book does give Clinton due credit. Doesn't absolve him, but shows that he was trying.
And I never said "Clinton good Bush bad. Got it." I said he made a fair assertion.
AquaShrimp is right. If we keep focusing on the partisan crap that BOTH sides are spewing, we rist losing all objectivity (if theres any left in American politics). I think it's fair for Clinton to defend himself, and that the blame placed on him in this matter has been largely unfounded. I also think he screwed up plenty of crap during his terms and I'm not saying he's a good person.
Bush still gets to be a bad person though, as the record shows pretty clearly that he's dropped the ball just about every chance he got.
I'd love to hear something concrete about how Bush was trying to track down bin laden before 9/11. I'd also love to hear a good reason why he hasn't been found yet. I'd really love to hear why it makes us safer to invade other nations that have nothing to do with Al Qaeda, when we havn't even finished with the TERRORIST organization first.
Address some of these questions, and start rejecting the false left/right paradigm that these criminals want to trap us all in and we'll have started to make some progress....
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Give me the objective facts, not your skewed opinions.
Clinton can't handle pressure from the media. He is used to a fawning press like Larry King. Wallace didn't treat him disrepectful, he asked him a question. This is too much for King Clinton , so he blew a gasket. The nerve of the the press to treat him like they do any other politcal figure.
He had a chance to be the grand statesmen his followers claim he is.
Instead he had a meltdown over a question that is usually put as an accusation almost every day against Dubya. He blew it. There's a fact for you.
-
Originally posted by MiniD
The interview was completely inapropriate, IMO. Journalism has lost all credibility. Kudos for Clinton for responding to that point.
Originally posted by tikky
Faux News (TM) as usual...
If you think that was a description of any one news station, you are dillusional. They're all the same.
And LePaul, you need to stop listening to Rush. If Bill had used different wording, he would have provided quotes to establish exactly how Clinton was only doing it to deter from the scandal. Rush is part of the problem, not a voice to quote as fact.
-
I'll listen to whomever I please, thank you very much.
Rush just pointed out some facts that show some interesting empirical data. When Clinton lobbed those missiles out, there was unified praise for him attacking terrorists who had attacked our embassies. Clinton's notion that the right wingers were against him at every step simply doesnt hold water.
You can disagree with if Rush all you want. I don't always agree with him either. However he's given detailed info which you can check up on for yourself.
-
Actually, rush issued some quotes with no context. Stop confusing those with facts.
Congress was too busy with lewinskigate to really do much else of anything. "At least he did something" did not mean they didn't think he did it to defer attention and it does not mean that he did not try to do more to which congress was not receptive. The main sticking point was to free their attention from their current focus and shift it to something else. It did not work.
WTG!... a little late, but WTG!... now let's get back to this pressing lewinski thing is not full support from congress. No further action as congress made it very clear they were "on to him" is not even remotely refuted by a single rush limbaugh quote.
Limbaugh and Moore are two of the same animal. Different audiences, but the exact same mentality in both. Of course, neither will admit that there are actually loyalties that render skewed perspectives, but that's just the way hero worship goes.
-
Very well...another, non-Rush source saying much the same
Linky (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/bill_clinton_bin_laden_and_hys.html)
-
Personally I don't think it's enough just to read the transcripts. As pointed out he wasn't a very dignified statesmen when asked questions that should be asked. If you watch the video he blew up. He "blew a gasket". It's not the same as "I can tell he's lying cause his lips where moving" it's as pointed out he took that same grin and stance when he blatently lied to the american people on national TV.
It's not what he lied about it's the fact that he did it in a stone cold mannor on national TV. Then you realize that's how the man communicates and you cannot trust a word he says.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Thanks for posting that. I would have gotten very angry listening to slick willy and would have woken my room mate.
this scares me.
-
Originally posted by Shifty
Clinton can't handle pressure from the media.
This thread is getting funnier and funnierer.
-
Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are two of the worst presidents the US has ever elected.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Very well...another, non-Rush source saying much the same
Linky (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/bill_clinton_bin_laden_and_hys.html)
Did you read any of that? I couldn't get past "From the onset, Mr. Clinton seemed ill at ease. This is understandable, as he didn't see the normally comforting initials of the "Clinton News Network" proudly displayed on the video cameras in front of him. But, this doesn't absolve him of appearing before the American people as if he were Norman Bates just questioned about his mother."
Did that one make you chuckle? OH! IT'S SO TRUE!!!!
That's the best you can come with and it only supports my argument. That's pretty sad.
-
Clinton thinks he is too smart for everyone/everyone. That's why he agreed to the interview.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Did you read any of that? I couldn't get past "From the onset, Mr. Clinton seemed ill at ease. This is understandable, as he didn't see the normally comforting initials of the "Clinton News Network" proudly displayed on the video cameras in front of him. But, this doesn't absolve him of appearing before the American people as if he were Norman Bates just questioned about his mother."
Did that one make you chuckle? OH! IT'S SO TRUE!!!!
That's the best you can come with and it only supports my argument. That's pretty sad.
Look, a discussion with you is always an exercise in dealing with your trite insults. I'll pass.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Look, a discussion with you is always an exercise in dealing with your trite insults. I'll pass.
I didn't see how MiniD insulted you.
-
MiniD does have a problem. He thinks he's smart because he "works with phd's"
That's sad, but I refuse to belittle him for that.
I don't work with "phd's" I work with people.
-
Actually, if you get down to the meat of the article, past the cheap shot funnies, he does make some valid points Clinton probably doesn't want to hear
-
If you haven't watched the interview then your opinion of it is meaningless to me. Clinton used the forum to lash out with much venom at all the "right wingers" he knew would be watching. I think he figured his supporters don't watch Fox News or else feel the same as he does. Didn't change my opinion of the man as I mentioned.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Actually, if you get down to the meat of the article, past the cheap shot funnies, he does make some valid points Clinton probably doesn't want to hear
That's why I say that Clinton is an arrogant handsomehunk. He thought he was "above" everyone else and couldn't possibly be made to look bad by a stupid FOX reporter.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Didn't change my opinion of the man as I mentioned.
Do you think he'll make a good First Lady?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Do you think he'll make a good First Lady?
Wasn't it Falwell that just said that even Lucifer wouldn't galvanize the GOP more than Hillary if she runs? He may be right. If Hillary runs I may call up a local Republican campaign office to see what I can do to help. I've never done that before.
-
Byron York has a nice take on this:
Clinton did not give up in the sense of an executive who gives an order and then moves on to other things, thinking the order is being carried out when in fact it is being ignored. Instead, Clinton knew at the time that his top military and intelligence officials were dragging their feet on going after bin Laden and al Qaeda. He gave up rather than use his authority to force them into action.
Examples are all over Clarke’s book. On page 223, Clarke describes a meeting, in late 2000, of the National Security Council “principals” — among them, the heads of the CIA, the FBI, the Attorney General, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the secretaries of State, Defense. It was just after al Qaeda’s attack on the USS Cole. But neither the FBI nor the CIA would say that al Qaeda was behind the bombing, and there was little support for a retaliatory strike. Clarke quotes Mike Sheehan, a State Department official, saying in frustration, “What’s it going to take, Dick? Who the **** do they think attacked the Cole, ****in’ Martians? The Pentagon brass won’t let Delta go get bin Laden. Hell they won’t even let the Air Force carpet bomb the place. Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?”
That came later. But in October 2000, what would it have taken? A decisive presidential order — which never came.
The story was the same with the CIA. On page 204, Clarke vents his frustration at the CIA’s slow-walking on the question of killing bin Laden. “I still to this day do not understand why it was impossible for the United States to find a competent group of Afghans, Americans, third-country nationals, or some combination who could locate bin Laden in Afghanistan and kill him,” Clarke writes. “I believe that those in CIA who claim the [presidential] authorizations were insufficient or unclear are throwing up that claim as an excuse to cover the fact that they were pathetically unable to accomplish the mission.”
Clarke hit the CIA again a few pages later, on page 210, on the issue of the CIA’s refusal to budget money for the fight against al Qaeda. “The formal, official CIA response was that there were [no funds],” Clarke writes. “Another way to say that was that everything they were doing was more important than fighting al Qaeda.”
The FBI proved equally frustrating. On page 217, Clarke describes a colleague, Roger Cressey, who was frustrated after meeting with an FBI representative on the subject of terrorism. “That ****er is going to get some Americans killed,” Clarke reports Cressey saying. “He just sits there like a bump on a log.” Clarke adds: “I knew he was talking about an FBI representative.”
So Clinton couldn’t get the job done. Why not? According to Clarke’s pro-Clinton view, the president was stymied by Republican opposition. “Weakened by continual political attack,” Clarke writes, “[Clinton] could not get the CIA, the Pentagon, and FBI to act sufficiently to deal with the threat.”
Republicans boxed Clinton in, Clarke writes, beginning in the 1992 campaign, with criticism of Clinton’s avoidance of the draft as a young man, and extending all the way to the Lewinsky scandal and the president’s impeachment. The bottom line, Clarke argues, is that the commander-in-chief was not in command. From page 225:
Because of the intensity of the political opposition that Clinton engendered, he had been heavily criticized for bombing al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in ‘Wag the Dog’ tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life. For similar reasons, he could not fire the recalcitrant FBI Director who had failed to fix the Bureau or to uncover terrorists in the United States. He had given the CIA unprecedented authority to go after bin Laden personally and al Qaeda, but had not taken steps when they did little or nothing. Because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations they did not want to conduct. He had tried that in Somalia, and the military had made mistakes and blamed him. In the absence of a bigger provocation from al Qaeda to silence his critics, Clinton thought he could do no more.
In the end, Clarke writes, Clinton “put in place the plans and programs that allowed America to respond to the big attacks when they did come, sweeping away the political barriers to action.”
But the bottom line is that Bill Clinton, the commander-in-chief, could not find the will to order the military into action against al Qaeda, and Bill Clinton, the head of the executive branch, could not find the will to order the CIA and FBI to act. No matter what the former president says on Fox, or anywhere else, that is his legacy in the war on terror.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDM4N2E1MzU5ZjQ0YTA3YmJiYzEyYjQ2ZDBiNWJlYjE=
-
One of the last things that Clinton said in the interview was that the CIA and the FBI wouldn't certify it was Al-Qaeda behind the attacks and so he left office. Those were his words or very very close. If you watched the interview you would have gotten the impression that he resigned because the CIA and FBI would not support him against Al-Qaeda.
I don't believe anything the man says but I'm sitting there thinking is there really anyone stupid enough to believe what he just said. The sad thing is, there is.
-
After writing that out it occured to me that Clinton probably meant "and so I left office (without doing squat)". He just couldn't bring himself to say that last part.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are two of the worst presidents the US has ever elected.
I can name others
FDR
Harry Truman
John Kennedy
Lydon Johnson
these immediately come to mind as very poor examples of POTUS
-
Bush will go down in history as the worst 2 term President since Grant..
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Bush will go down in history as the worst 2 term President since Grant..
in 20 years or so you'll be saying the same thing about dubya that dems say about reagan now. besides billy jeff will probably be the all time worst.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Thanks for posting that. I would have gotten very angry listening to slick willy and would have woken my room mate.
Kicked a dog and flipped off a hippe, too, eh? Ahem. ;)
-
Originally posted by storch
I can name others
FDR
Harry Truman
John Kennedy
Lydon Johnson
these immediately come to mind as very poor examples of POTUS
:huh
hap
-
The single most important duty of the federal government is to secure the nation against its enemies, foreign and domestic.
The Chief Executive has always been assumed to be the leader of the government in implementing that duty. When a threat emerges the nation can ill afford to have a man in that office who goes all wobbly. In such a situation, the president should act decisively. If a Ben Laden is offered to him on a silver platter by a foreign government the appropriate course of action should be a no-brainer.
Likewise, the president does not allow the CIA or the military to dictate policy or second guess decisions necessary to protect U.S. citizens. He gives the orders...period. He accepts no ifs, ands, or buts. He sets a course of action and insists on it being followed.
Thus, Clinton's assertion that he couldn't persuade the CIA or the military to take out a dangerous enemy is an enormously f-e-c-k-less statement.
Ole Slick is the polar opposite of the ideal ruler envisioned by Machiavelli's "The Prince."
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Bush will go down in history as the worst 2 term President since Grant..
i think that in 200 years bush sr. will go down as the only five termer:O :O :noid :noid :noid its true, maybe even six
-
Rush Limbaugh went off about a pathological liar. This from a person who harps on personal character and does so much Oxycontin that he loses his hearing. If my mama was still alive, she would not approve of me hanging around with Rush Limbaugh. He's a dope head.
If I'm going to listen to someone preach about personal responsibility and character it won't be from an oxy head (an oxymoron if you will.:D ).
-
If Bush ever gave an interview like that to CNN you guys would be doing backflips, calling him the gr3at3st ev4r and spend long sessions in the conservative chatrooms late at night.
He gave a solid interview with solid answers. He addressed the "fair and balanced" aspects of the reporters forum. He took responsability for what happened during his term and asks this president to do the same. Republicans were against his military actions when he was in office, now democrats are against Bush's. Maybe if the republicans had been looking for bin Laden as hard as they were looking for Lewinski things would be much different for everyone today. And by the way, he IS smarter than most of the people in the room.
It's good to see a Democrat with a set of balls again. (No pun intended)
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Look, a discussion with you is always an exercise in dealing with your trite insults. I'll pass.
Where's the discussion again LePaul? You're posting links. Links that are even sillier "once you get past the..." aspect of things.
There's plenty of reasons to dislike clinton and he was as impotent as any president we've had. But on this subject, there is no winner. Clinton and the republicans were more focussed about the lewinski ordeal than anything else... terrorism included.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
A normal nuke post
Heya nuke. If you ever get tired of being yourself, you could try being a real person.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Where's the discussion again LePaul? You're posting links. Links that are even sillier "once you get past the..." aspect of things.
There's plenty of reasons to dislike clinton and he was as impotent as any president we've had. But on this subject, there is no winner. Clinton and the republicans were more focussed about the lewinski ordeal than anything else... terrorism included.
that is a very good assessment.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
The single most important duty of the federal government is to secure the nation against its enemies, foreign and domestic.
Shuckins, your statement is worth discussion. --"in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"-- Might the other 5 "duties" rival defense?
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Wow... Did you guys read that? What exactly did he dodge? Sounds like he gave Wallace a slap down. And he answered every question.
Exactly.. They didnt really read it. They just hate...
Here is a bit of a reminder for all you righties who dont think your guys flip flop:
Republicans react to Clinton over Kosovo
By: John Amato on Wednesday, August 17th, 2005 at 1:18 PM - PDT
Why did they second-guess our commitment to freedom from genocide and demand that we cut and run?
" President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be
away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That’s why I’m against it."
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99
"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush
Why did they demoralize our brave men and women in uniform?
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning…I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99
"Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"I’m on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we’re running out of cruise missles. I can’t tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we’re almost out of cruise missles."
-Senator Inhofe (R-OK )
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"I don’t know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
Why didn’t they support our president in a time of war?
"Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
"This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem."
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)
-
"The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We’re taking on not just Milosevic. We can’t just say, ‘that little guy, we can whip him.’ We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president."
-Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)
"You can support the troops but not the president"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they’re made … not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
Why did they blame America first?
Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that’s when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started"
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)
"
Clinton’s bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo’s capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"
-Pat Buchanan (R)
"These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark …who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton."
-Michael Savage
"This has been an unmitigated disaster … Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we’ve killed. Ask the refugees that we’ve killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."
-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."
-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)
"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo’s capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"
-Pat Buchanan (R )
"By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind’s history. Not even Hitler’s grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia."
-Bob Djurdjevic, founder of Truth in Media
-
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/25/olbermanns-special-comment-are-yours-the-actions-of-a-true-american/
Tell it like it is Keith...............
-
what does Kosovo (and the above quoted republicans being totally wrong about our involment in it) have to due with slicks refusal to do anything about OBL for 8 years?
if he wasn't guilty in his heart, he wouldn't have lost his cool about the subject matter on national tv like he did.
Heck, he was caught with his pants down in the Oval office and he didn't get that excited about it ... then again he was a screw bunny his entire political career.
He screwed up and he knows it. Has to be a terrible burden to lug around for the rest of his life. Almost makes you feel sorry for him .... almost.
-
Hap, if the nation is not secure the other five duties, more appropriately defined as "goals," become unattainable, and aren't worth a spoiled fig.
Regards, Shuckins
-
another liberal echo chamber thread:noid
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
This thread is getting funnier and funnierer.
It will never be as funny as your boy was Sunday. . Imagine the comedy had the press treated him with the same disrespect they treat Bush. Clinton would never have been able to handle it for a month much less years. One little question and he pulled his skirt over his head.
Said it before....................... .....
owned :lol
-
As if Clinton could say ANYTHING and have you guys not critisize it.
Same goes for the rest about Bush.
The whole conversation is stupid. BOTH Presidents failed us (in terms of protecting us from Terrorists). Miserably.
No more excuses. No more BS.
BOTH administrations are incredibly guilty of shifting blame. If you REALLY think that either administration did better than the other in defending against the 9/11 attacks, you need to loosen your tinfoil hat a few notches.
At least Clarke had the balls to appologise for it. Something that I've seen NOBODY else do.
Stop caring what the media says. **** the media. They, like everyone else, have an agenda. They're now nothing but a propaganda machine. Do you REALLY think that some deuchbag reporter can "PWN" the president or ex-president? HA! It's awful easy to ask the tough questions when you yourself aren't under scrutiny. I'd ****ing LOVE to turn that mic around and start forcing THOSE deuchbags a question or two. See how "perfect" those *******s are.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
But he is the one who is responsible, who else?
wrong mission accomplished, now search to blame others.
He IS the one who sent us to war that much I'll give you.
At the time it was the right mission and it was accomplished. Saddam was overthrown just as we set out to do.
-
Originally posted by Rameusb5
As if Clinton could say ANYTHING and have you guys not critisize it.
Same goes for the rest about Bush.
The whole conversation is stupid. BOTH Presidents failed us (in terms of protecting us from Terrorists). Miserably.
No more excuses. No more BS.
BOTH administrations are incredibly guilty of shifting blame. If you REALLY think that either administration did better than the other in defending against the 9/11 attacks, you need to loosen your tinfoil hat a few notches.
At least Clarke had the balls to appologise for it. Something that I've seen NOBODY else do.
Stop caring what the media says. **** the media. They, like everyone else, have an agenda. They're now nothing but a propaganda machine. Do you REALLY think that some deuchbag reporter can "PWN" the president or ex-president? HA! It's awful easy to ask the tough questions when you yourself aren't under scrutiny. I'd ****ing LOVE to turn that mic around and start forcing THOSE deuchbags a question or two. See how "perfect" those *******s are.
Amen
The rhetoric is so thick, people are amazed when the government acts is a normal government manner - slow, lumbering, bureaucratic, inefficient, and a little insane. Neither side worried about OBL until they absolutely had to.
-
Clinton did every thing he absolutely could to protect us from terrorists....
He attacked the branch dividian and burned it down... Then he pulled a brilliant Wag the dog and cruise missled an outhouse....
-
Originally posted by Rameusb5
As if Clinton could say ANYTHING and have you guys not critisize it.
Same goes for the rest about Bush.
You think after all these years we don't realize this? We're just having our usual left wing , right wing, love fest. We'll move on to cars , computers, hobbies, or something else before the week is out.;)
-
Fair enough...
:)
-
I can deal with the worst of the right (Carl Rove) as well as the worst of the left (James Carville) and enjoy it for what it is, utter nonsense....but Bill Clinton is a unique animal, he is the devil.
-
you wouldn't be venezuelan would you yeager?
-
An interesting perspective on the interview:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/743aibjn.asp
He outlines some possible strategies behind the appearance.
-
well....since you frame it like that I conceed that I should update my vitriol in light of the recent Chavezgasm in new york.
Here is the updated vitriol: Klinton is TEH goober!!!
:eek:
-
An interesting perspective on the interview:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...12/743aibjn.asp
He outlines some possible strategies behind the appearance.
Kristol is a neocon tool (and to his credit he's honest about it, unlike that stroke Kruthammer), but I bet his analysis of Clintons Fox confrontation is spot on.
Charon
-
Charon,
Of course Kristol was spot on. I've been observing Ole Slick for three decades, and I can tell you that his indignation hasn't an ounce of real passion in it. He went into the Fox interview intending to "blow his stack" when confronted with Matthew's first hard pitch.
Clinton can be a bully...but this is calculated as well. Kudos to Matthews for sticking to his guns. His questions were relevant. The window of opportunity for bagging Ben Laden easily was open while Clinton was in office, and Slick knows it. By the time Bush was inaugurated, Ben Laden was in Afganistan, and that window had closed.
To be perfectly fair, both the Clinton and Bush administrations didn't take the terrorist threat seriously enough. What marks Clinton as the Scarlet Pumpernickel of presidents is his failure to recognize how f-e-c-kless his own decision making was. If he had had half a spine he would have kicked a few backsides and told the CIA and the military to get Ben Laden anyway they could; "No excuses boys, and no back talk. Get your arses in gear and come up with a plan or be prepared to find alternate employment."
Regards, Shuckins
-
:)
(http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.09.26.ClintonLegacy-X.gif)
-
Clinton owned the idiot.
-
I still havn't seen the liberal OUTRAGE of Clinton encouraging "that women" to lubricate that tobacco product- a cigar- in her vagina off the Oval Office, and subject the nation of kids to speculation about this, not to mention that obvious, mandatory CANCER warnings that were ignored. Dems were mum. Maybe they came out with global warming to distract the country...
oh, and it did piss me off when Bill and Hillary basically rented out the Lincoln Room to high campaign contributers, who were reported to be jumping up and down on the bed raising hell.
still, I agreed with a lot of Clinton's decisions while in office. But he knows he pretty much ruined any good he did by giving in to his addiction and getting caught... it wouldn't have been fun for him without the risk.
-
Has anyone ever disproven or discredited Patterson's charges in Dereliction of Duty that Clinton missed an opportunity to kill Bin Laden because he wouldn't return calls while watching a golf match?
-
Today... Clinton = beans.
Why do we care?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Bush will go down in history as the worst 2 term President since Grant..
Only in the eye's of you lefty's, so it will make about as much difference in the grand scheme of things as you guys do now, none.... :aok
-
Of interest, a reporter asked the president today if Clinton's allegation was true that Bush had no meetings about dealing with Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda threat for nine months after Clinton left office, and left Al Qaeda intel for Bush. Bush's response? "No comment."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjB9uMUM6xI&eurl=
-
The reason Bush gave "no comment" was he didn't have Karl Rove's hand shoved up his arse like a puppet putting words in his mouth.
-
Right or wrong, Clinton is a god of discourse. And if anyone here had to argue with him, 99.999% of you would piss your pants as he made you look like a blithering idiot. My goodness but I would love to see him debate Bush.
Both Clinton and Fox chose to strive against each other in that forum. They both had agendas going into the "interview", I'm sure. I don't wish to argue the rightness of those agendas. I do, however, believe that Clinton powned.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I still havn't seen the liberal OUTRAGE of Clinton encouraging "that women" to lubricate that tobacco product- a cigar- in her vagina off the Oval Office, and subject the nation of kids to speculation about this, not to mention that obvious, mandatory CANCER warnings that were ignored. Dems were mum. Maybe they came out with global warming to distract the country...
oh, and it did piss me off when Bill and Hillary basically rented out the Lincoln Room to high campaign contributers, who were reported to be jumping up and down on the bed raising hell.
still, I agreed with a lot of Clinton's decisions while in office. But he knows he pretty much ruined any good he did by giving in to his addiction and getting caught... it wouldn't have been fun for him without the risk.
Maybe because the disappointment factor expected was indeed "moral outrage" yet the same people chastising others for not feeling such moral outrage can't seem to get all that worked up on things like torture or the failure to support and defend the letter and spirit of the constitution or creating a fiscal sinkhole regarding the national budget due to pride, cluelessness and a total lack of responsibility. There was plenty of disappointment exhibited by every Democrat I knew and many I didn't. But as far as it "ruining" all the good he did that's just a desire to want to find him lacking in comparison to Bush. That's just slinging and clinging to a delusion of grandeur for sake of not admitting they supported the village idiot to save face, I reckon. And blaming Clinton (and Carter and Johnson and JFK and FDR and ... and ... pick a Democratic president but leave Nixon and Reagan out of the dirtyness of oval office politics) for everything that happened on George's watch doesn't quite work as well as it used to. Six years of crap weighs more than a damp cigar, sorry. ;)
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Clinton owned the idiot.
Yes, she does.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Clinton owned the idiot.
Clinton was and is an idiot.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Right or wrong, Clinton is a god of discourse. And if anyone here had to argue with him, 99.999% of you would piss your pants as he made you look like a blithering idiot. My goodness but I would love to see him debate Bush.
Both Clinton and Fox chose to strive against each other in that forum. They both had agendas going into the "interview", I'm sure. I don't wish to argue the rightness of those agendas. I do, however, believe that Clinton powned.
Clinton turns my stomach everytime I see his face or hear his voice. Why some can't see through his disguise I just don't understand.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Right or wrong, Clinton is a god of discourse. And if anyone here had to argue with him, 99.999% of you would piss your pants as he made you look like a blithering idiot. My goodness but I would love to see him debate Bush.
Both Clinton and Fox chose to strive against each other in that forum. They both had agendas going into the "interview", I'm sure. I don't wish to argue the rightness of those agendas. I do, however, believe that Clinton powned.
Ronald Reagan is what you are describing. Clinton is just a liar and a fool.
-
The amazing issue of the US effort against terror is that republicans would sabotage the US efforts against saudi arabia and their puppet al quido for political gain and money. The republicans started destroying the US for hate and greed during the clinton years and they are finishing the job beyond all imaginings. All that will be left of the US in a few years will be hate filled skin heads with puzzeled looks on thier faces when karl rove isnt telling them who to attack.
-
^^^^^^^^
LOL LOL LOL
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
Clinton was and is an idiot.
I'm not seein' you havin' the luxury of castin' a stone in that regard, currently. ;)
-
Originally posted by lukster
Clinton turns my stomach everytime I see his face or hear his voice. Why some can't see through his disguise I just don't understand.
Well that's rather ironical. :D
-
(http://www.hjo3.net/orly/gal1/orly_clinton.jpg)
-
CW: Now Mr. Chamberlain, a lot of people are saying that had you acted to decisively stop Herr Hitler after he remilitarized the Rhineland, when Germany was still weak, we could have avoided the Second World War, I know hindsight is 20/20...
Neville Chamberlain: Now you look here, I acted...
CW: Mr. Chamberlain if I could finish...
NC: No, you look here, I acted in the interests of peace, and why don't you ask this kind of question of him, ask him about Singapore, everyone goes on and on about Norway and France, but the single greatest military defeat in British history didn't happen on my watch. When I left, I left with the incoming government with a plan to defeat Nazism...
CW: Alright then, but what about Munich, peace in our time, the Phoney War? So many missteps...
NC: Oh aren't we all smirky and proud of ourselves for remembering "Peace in our time." Have you forgotten it was my administration that declared war in the first place, and that we fought it to stop Herr Hitler? Had Winnie not committed us to his disastrous "War in Asia" we'd have finished this mess by now. As it is we have troops all over the place. What on earth are we doing in the Far East anyway? Is that were Hitler is? I dare say not. The war there is a quagmire, a veritable bottomless bog. I say be done with it. Withdraw. And can we talk about unrestricted bombing of civilian populations... How many innocent German people have died so that...
CW: But what about...
NC: No, I know its all about you warmongers blaming the old administration for the current mess, but I only had less than one year to deal with Hitlerism, but how long has the current Prime Minister been at it hmmm? And every year its just a bigger and costlier war than the last. Maybe if fellows like the present PM hadn't been so set on stirring up that hornet's nest while I was working for peace, we'd never have had this war in the first place. National Socialism isn't inherently violent you know, I know that's how some extremists interpret Mein Kampf but...
CW: I'm sorry but that's all we have time for...
-
Maybe because the disappointment factor expected was indeed "moral outrage" yet the same people chastising others for not feeling such moral outrage can't seem to get all that worked up on things like torture or the failure to support and defend the letter and spirit of the constitution or creating a fiscal sinkhole regarding the national budget due to pride, cluelessness and a total lack of responsibility. There was plenty of disappointment exhibited by every Democrat I knew and many I didn't. But as far as it "ruining" all the good he did that's just a desire to want to find him lacking in comparison to Bush. That's just slinging and clinging to a delusion of grandeur for sake of not admitting they supported the village idiot to save face, I reckon. And blaming Clinton (and Carter and Johnson and JFK and FDR and ... and ... pick a Democratic president but leave Nixon and Reagan out of the dirtyness of oval office politics) for everything that happened on George's watch doesn't quite work as well as it used to. Six years of crap weighs more than a damp cigar, sorry. - Arlo
Arlo, President Clinton inserted a product known to cause cancer into a young subordinate's vagina to coat the tobacco leaves with a substance that would put some schtank on it and keep the cigar leaves from unravelling. (reportedly this made Hillary more angry then the slimy deposit left on Lewinski's dress. This was according to Lewinsky herself, when she was quoted by the Washing Post as stating, - "I am not a fat, cheesy slut.")
Anyway, any democrat I've ever spoken to about this does the same thing you did... try to minimize it, and deny any impact of the appalling incident on Clinton's governance, and point to the "evil" political beliefs of over half the nation as being far worse. Personally, I think Clinton was completely distracted in this phase of his presidency. Clinton knows it too, that is why he flew off the handle during the interview when posed with the question: "why didn't you do more?" The implication that he might have been distracted was too close to home. just my .02
-
Originally posted by rpm
The reason Bush gave "no comment" was he didn't have Karl Rove's hand shoved up his arse like a puppet putting words in his mouth.
damn man, the image of that nearly had me spit my cool ranch doritos on the monitor, much appreciated :mad: